This would be confusing necessary for sufficient. The premise is saying: "If you resign, then it is necessary that you are convicted." The conclusion is saying: "If you are convicted, it is necessary that you resigned." However, this is not right; there could be a variety of other reasons for you getting convicted other than resigning. We don't know what those reasons are from the info here, but have no reason to think that the ONLY way to get convicted is by resigning.
0
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!
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.
This would be confusing necessary for sufficient. The premise is saying: "If you resign, then it is necessary that you are convicted." The conclusion is saying: "If you are convicted, it is necessary that you resigned." However, this is not right; there could be a variety of other reasons for you getting convicted other than resigning. We don't know what those reasons are from the info here, but have no reason to think that the ONLY way to get convicted is by resigning.