In terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for the LSAT, I'm wondering what the difference is between "All because..." and "Only because...". For example: "All because the nail fell out, the war was lost" vs. "Only because the nail fell out, the war was lost." Or, the example could be, say, "All because of you, the war was lost" vs. "Only because of you, the war was lost", etc.

My confusion is that "All" introduces a sufficient condition, whereas "Only" introduces a necessary condition. But, the sentences seem to have the same meaning. What's the difference between "All" and "Only" in the examples above? Is the use of the word "All" just simply wrong when applying it to only one person (or thing), and such an example would never be found on a LSAT (even if people say "All because of you..." in everyday, real life)?

Also, I am confused by the word "because" in the above examples. I know "because" introduces a premise (which I think of a premise as being akin to a sufficient condition, or at least as an antecedent), but does "because" introduce necessary or sufficient conditions, as well?

Thanks!

Michael

I am wondering if the word "then" introduces a necessary condition and/or the conclusion to premise(s); and if "then" is only pertinent to conditional statements, or to cause and effect statements, as well. Of note, I am wondering this because the word "then" seems to function similarly to words that I know introduce necessary conditions and conclusions -- such as, "requires" or "must" (for necessary conditions); and "therefore" or "thus" (for conclusions) -- but I do not see "then" on any official list of indicator words that introduce necessary conditions or conclusions.

Thank you!

Michael