Another way to think of it: sufficiency guarantees necessity not the other the way around. Being a cat guarantees being a mammal but being a mammal doesn't guarantee being a cat.
Premise 1: membership in a subset is sufficient for membership in a superset. Premise 2: X is a member of the subset. Conclusion: X is a member of the superset. Is that correct
for all of the formal logic people out there, this is is a simple argument form if you break it down into p and q. it would look something like: if p then q (p ->q), p, therefore q. this works because if the first half of a conditional statement is true (which we know it is because of the second premise, then the second half must be true in order for the statement (our original premise of if p -> q) to be true! idk if this helps anyone, but conceptually it works a lot better for me.
Back to my very first philosophy class lol! All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. Thank you philosophy degree for your help in these trying times.
Superset: mortality
Subset: all men
Socrates being a man is sufficient to say that Socrates is mortal, but being mortal isn't enough to say that Socrates is mortal, because animals and plants are mortal as well. (I think this is it)
If one is named Cody, then one will score above 170 on the LSAT. My name is Cody. Therefore, I will score above 170 on the LSAT. J.Y. SAID IT IS VALID!!!!!
Fore the Jedi example I first wrote out that the Force was the subset, then I realized... hold up Darth Maul is a force user and hes a sith! So therefore he is a Force user that is not a Jedi. It all just clicked for me. S/O Star Wars Rebels + The Clone Wars
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
80 comments
Please don't disrespect Luke!
Another way to think of it: sufficiency guarantees necessity not the other the way around. Being a cat guarantees being a mammal but being a mammal doesn't guarantee being a cat.
Premise 1: membership in a subset is sufficient for membership in a superset. Premise 2: X is a member of the subset. Conclusion: X is a member of the superset. Is that correct
Every conditional argument is valid? Does that also make every conditional argument true?
when you put it like this, it makes more sense.
Will the premises always be assumed true? like not all turtles are ninjas, but for the test we assume this is the case?
if one is relaxing, they're watching tv. Bre is watching TV. therefore bre is relaxing.
Finally had the light bulb moment for this section! Now let's see if I can connect the dots on PTs
for all of the formal logic people out there, this is is a simple argument form if you break it down into p and q. it would look something like: if p then q (p ->q), p, therefore q. this works because if the first half of a conditional statement is true (which we know it is because of the second premise, then the second half must be true in order for the statement (our original premise of if p -> q) to be true! idk if this helps anyone, but conceptually it works a lot better for me.
All of the Sleepless Kingdom has been cursed to sleep. Aurora is from the Sleepless Kingdom. Therefore, she has been cursed to sleep.
Back to my very first philosophy class lol! All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. Thank you philosophy degree for your help in these trying times.
Superset: mortality
Subset: all men
Socrates being a man is sufficient to say that Socrates is mortal, but being mortal isn't enough to say that Socrates is mortal, because animals and plants are mortal as well. (I think this is it)
If Troy was born in Florida, then he is American. Troy was born in America, therefore he is American
If one was born in New York City, then one is American. Zach was born in NYC. Therefore, Zach is an American.
If one is a man, then one is superman. Clark Kent is a man. Therefore, Clark Kent is superman.
If one works out, they get jacked.
Mark is working out.
So, Mark will get jacked.
Subset: Getting Jacked.
Superset: Working Out.
Dexter fans:
If Dexter is the Bay Harbour Butcher, then Dexter is a serial killer.
Dexter (spoiler) is the Bay Harbour Butcher.
So, Dexter is a serial killer.
Subset: Bay Harbour Butcher
Superset: Serial Killer
Ninja - Turtle.
Can you switch the circles? Or draw the circles on top of one another? Since its not saying "Some turtles are ninjas".
I felt so good about necessary vs sufficient until the ninja turtle relationship. For some reason that one keeps throwing me off.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Subset: Turtles
Superset: Ninjas
Being a turtle is sufficient to be a ninja.
So as a turtle you are necessarily a ninja...
But it is not necessary to be a turtle to be a ninja.
Being a ninja is necessary to be a turtle.
But not all ninjas are turtles.
premise 1: All astronauts are donkeys.
premise 2: Mickey Mouse is an astronaut.
conclusion: Mickey Mouse is a donkey.
VALID!
Here is another example that might help clarify!
Subset: Orange juice.
Superset: Fruit juices.
Orange juice is sufficient to be fruit juice, but not necessary (because fruit juices could also be apple, grape, etc.).
Fruit juice is necessary to be orange juice, but not sufficient (not all fruit juices are orange)
If one is named Cody, then one will score above 170 on the LSAT. My name is Cody. Therefore, I will score above 170 on the LSAT. J.Y. SAID IT IS VALID!!!!!
Power level over 9000 hahaha
Am I right?
If one is a shark then one is a fish. Ollie is a shark which means ollie has to be a fish.
mini subset/dot: ollie
subset: shark
superset: fish
Sharks are sufficient to fish, but not necessary. Fish is necessary to be sharks.
If you are 17 years or older, you can go to a rated R movie alone. Adrian went to see Sinners alone, so Adrian is 17 years or older.
Fore the Jedi example I first wrote out that the Force was the subset, then I realized... hold up Darth Maul is a force user and hes a sith! So therefore he is a Force user that is not a Jedi. It all just clicked for me. S/O Star Wars Rebels + The Clone Wars