I understand that this is probably a dumb question but I keep having difficulties with flaw questions that have answers that "confuse necessary and sufficient conditions."
This is what I understand so far:
If I eat an apple, I will be healthy.
So eating an apple is a sufficient condition to being healthy since I can be healthy through other ways as well. It doesn't have to necessarily be by eating an apple.
I just know that if I eat an apple, I will definitely be healthy. To reiterate, being healthy doesn't necessarily have to do anything with eating an apple.
So if I say:
1. if I eat an apple, I will be healthy
2. I am healthy
3. I ate an apple
Is that confusing necessary for sufficient? Which flaw is this?
Can I have an example of both types of confusions (confusing necessary for sufficient / sufficient for necessary)?
Thank you!
Side-note, is there such a thing as a plateau?
I've never scored higher than a 169 on a timed test.
If I register for the 7sage "LSAT Starter Course," and if I actually use it and put effort into it, could I bump my score so that I'm averaging high 160s? I stated earlier that my biggest issue is logical reasoning.