#help Sorry, this question just doesn't make sense to me. I've looked just about everywhere there are explanations and none of them seem compelling. I don't understand how something being successful = crit of that thing being misguided. If we're going to introduce the random element of success, which to me has no real connection to the idea of whether something can/should be criticized, the word "should" hardly seems like an issue. C makes more sense to me frankly. If comedies should do this thing then criticism of this thing doesn't make sense anymore. But genre success meaning general success seems wholly unconnected to the idea of warranted criticism.

I'm utterly baffled.

@philosopherstonez340 said:

IMO, NA don't have any direct relationship with the flaw. It may or may not fix it, or even need to address it.

It's good to have an idea of what the flaw is, but recognizing the flaw is not the same thing as prephrasing a flaw. Definitely don't pre-phrase, or if you do, don't put too much weight into that prephrase. Especially for trickier questions, the trap answer is usually what you're prephrasing, except with one word changed. If you want to be 170+, don't prephrase NA, and just focus on the "gap" or flaw.

Ok, so I said NA's don't have anything to direct relationship with the flaw, yet I focus on finding the flaw. Why? Here's my approach - first, I see if something must be true, as if it were a MBT question. Then, I negate the answer choices that I didn't eliminate to see if any of the negated answer choices "illustrates" the flaw. This is because, when negated, a NA should "become" the flaw. That's the definition of a NA, right? It means that, without it, the argument would be flawed, So although NA has no direct relationship with the flaw, once it is negated, it IS the flaw (or at least, one of many). This is demonstrated by the example in @philosopherstonez340 's comment.

So knowing the flaw is key for NA, because the negation of an NA "is" the flaw. So I hope this helps you see why knowing the flaw is so important.

So this is interesting. I think this way of thinking will be super helpful for trickier NA questions. For the easier questions, looking for the answer that blocks the assumption I've found/ what I've found the argument takes for granted seems to be working. But thinking of it this way makes things a little clearer, connecting some of the elements about NA that I've known but haven't yet been able to integrate into a comprehensive approach.

If I understand you correctly, when the correct answer choice is negated it should reflect the flaw I've found (even if it isn't an exact phrasing of said flaw). Is that right?

Could you tell me a little bit more about what you believe prephrasing a flaw is vs. recognizing? I think making that distinction would be helpful.

I think eliminating extra answer choices uses the MBT method will be helpful as well, so thank you for the reminder!

@ncnwangwu960 This is actually uncanny. I literally just had this realization a moment ago. As I was reviewing a recent take, I noticed a certain type of error I was making on grouping games, and that led me to realize that instead of just noting the possible distributions down, I should connect them to specific groups (by writing them near the group name). Usually there is at least one group that is super limited or has to have just two or one, or whatever it is. And that serves as an anchor.

Thank you so much for responding! This gave me a HUGE confidence boost!

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

@philosopherstonez340 said:

The necessary assumption TAKES CARE of the flaw in the reasoning. So let's say that our argument is this. Rattlesnakes grow sections on their tales each time they molt. Therefore, I can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections.

What's the flaw here? Well, we're assuming that rattlesnakes molt at an even pace. But this might not be the case. It could be the case that rattlesnakes molting patterns are extremely variable. If that's true, then we can by no means count the age of a rattlesnake just by counting its sections.

If this argument is valid, then it must be the case that that flaw isn't happening. That is, it must be the case that rattlesnakes' molting patterns are NOT variable. That's the necessary assumption. On this particular question, the correct answer is: rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful. Or, in other words, rattlesnakes do not vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity.

Note that this isn't a sufficient assumption. Knowing this does not allow us to conclude that we can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections, because it could still be the case that rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to something else, like weather. That being said, it's a necessary assumption. It must be correct if the argument is valid. We know this because if we negate it, then we get: rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity. If that's true, then the conclusion is destroyed.

To sum, necessary assumptions most definitely have to do with flaws in reasoning. If you know what's wrong with an argument (the flaw), and you're asked to find the necessary assumption, then a correct answer would be one that blocks that flaw from happening. The flaw must not be happening if the argument is valid. That is a necessary consequence of an argument being valid, that a particular flaw isn't happening, and that's why we call those necessary assumptions.

I'm trying to find out a way to star your post. Honor on you, honor on your house, honor on your cow. I knew there had to be a way to leverage the my flaw finding skills from the trainer with this question type. I just couldn't figure out what it was.

Have you read the trainer? Can I ask you more questions?

For posterity:

An NA, as you learn in the 7sage CC is an assumption that must be true if the argument has a chance at being valid. You need to find out what the author was thinking, but didin't say. The easiest way, in my opinion, to do this is to find the conclusion, find the premises, and then ask yourself what the author is taking for granted/failing to consider. The answer to that question is an assumption. From there--as per @philosopherstonez340 's brilliant deductions--you look for the answer that blocks this flaw; either by literally blocking it, or by lightly bridging the elements in the flaw to the rest of the argument. This is why NAs are so often mistaken with SAs. Both take care of the argument. The key is to realizing the different ways in which they do so. SA questions allow the conclusion to be drawn. The NA often does not as there are many, many NAs

Quick Note:

I am still interested in learning about how to let the answers guide you, because I'm aware that on trickier NA questions, the flaw you find likely won't be the one they utilize. And so having a plan 2 for when my prephrase isn't in the answer choices is key to my breaking 170 on test day.

@philosopherstonez340 said:

The necessary assumption TAKES CARE of the flaw in the reasoning. So let's say that our argument is this. Rattlesnakes grow sections on their tales each time they molt. Therefore, I can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections.

What's the flaw here? Well, we're assuming that rattlesnakes molt at an even pace. But this might not be the case. It could be the case that rattlesnakes molting patterns are extremely variable. If that's true, then we can by no means count the age of a rattlesnake just by counting its sections.

If this argument is valid, then it must be the case that that flaw isn't happening. That is, it must be the case that rattlesnakes' molting patterns are NOT variable. That's the necessary assumption. On this particular question, the correct answer is: rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful. Or, in other words, rattlesnakes do not vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity.

Note that this isn't a sufficient assumption. Knowing this does not allow us to conclude that we can know the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections, because it could still be the case that rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to something else, like weather. That being said, it's a necessary assumption. It must be correct if the argument is valid. We know this because if we negate it, then we get: rattlesnakes vary their molting patterns according to food scarcity. If that's true, then the conclusion is destroyed.

To sum, necessary assumptions most definitely have to do with flaws in reasoning. If you know what's wrong with an argument (the flaw), and you're asked to find the necessary assumption, then a correct answer would be one that blocks that flaw from happening. The flaw must not be happening if the argument is valid. That is a necessary consequence of an argument being valid, that a particular flaw isn't happening, and that's why we call those necessary assumptions.

I'm trying to find out a way to star your post. Honor on you, honor on your house, honor on your cow. I knew there had to be a way to leverage the my flaw finding skills from the trainer with this question type. I just couldn't figure out what it was.

Have you read the trainer? Can I ask you more questions?

For posterity:

An NA, as you learn in the 7sage CC is an assumption that must be true if the argument has a chance at being valid. You need to find out what the author was thinking, but didin't say. The easiest way, in my opinion, to do this is to find the conclusion, find the premises, and then ask yourself what the author is taking for granted/failing to consider. The answer to that question is an assumption. From there--as per @philosopherstonez340 's brilliant deductions--you look for the answer that blocks this flaw; either by literally blocking it, or by lightly bridging the elements in the flaw to the rest of the argument. This is why NAs are so often mistaken with SAs. Both take care of the argument. The key is to realizing the different ways in which they do so. SA questions allow the conclusion to be drawn. The NA often does not as there are many, many NAs

I am still interested in learning about how to let the answers guide you, because I'm aware that on trickier NA questions, the flaw you find likely won't be the one they utilize. And so having a plan 2 for when my prephrase isn't in the answer choices is key to my breaking 170 on test day.

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

@ohnoeshalpme804 You should definitely prephrase NA questions. The assumptions are easy to figure out if you pay attention to the arguments reasoning.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'm actually really good at figuring out assumptions--thanks to the trainer (credit where credit is due!). That's why I'm so good at flaw questions. I'm really good at SA questions because I know what I'm supposed to do with the flaw once I've found it (or what the correct AC is supposed to do to the flaw I find)

@gregoryalexanderdevine723 said:

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

Hi there!

So I'm still trying to answer this question and could use some help! Lots of different sources, including 7sager and the Trainer, suggest I find the flaw in the argument if I can, before considering answer choices. The question I've never been able to answer is this: Why? What does a correct answer choice in an NA question do to that flaw? With SA questions, the correct answer choice makes the flaw disappear. But with an NA, I don't have an answer. Any help would be amazing! I'm taking the Jan Lsat next week and I'm trying to tie up loose ends.

Hi there!

So with NA if you can find the flaw, you can see where an assumption was made. Assuming/overlooking something is a flaw!

As @ohnoeshalpme804 said above, knowing this can give you an idea of what you’re looking for.

Although, I disagree that you shouldn’t be prephrasing on NA questions. Some are really amenable to prephrasing. I can actually prephrase for most NA questions. However, there definitely are some that are super tricky and hard to see. Because I’ve trained myself to preprephrase I’m more aware when I come across these and then I’ll let the answer choices guide me. It’s just always important to make sure you understand the argument to such a degree that you’ll know the correct answer when you see it.

But I think to just always let the answer choices guide you would be a mistake. For one, if you have a prephrase you can go into “hunt mode” and find the answer with more confidence/less time. Second, the test writers are very good at making trap answers sound correct. So anytime you’re letting the answer choices guide you, you’re taking on that additional risk.

Hope this helps!

Ooooh. I love an integrated approach. Thank you for the heads up! I'll try to integrate once I understand @ohnoeshalpme804 and @yifeiwang926's approach better :)

@ohnoeshalpme804 said:

For NA questions, you shouldn't be pre-phrasing because NAs can be virtually infinite. In general, it is useful to understand the flaws in an argument because they can give you an idea of what to look for in the answer choices. But this process is often misleading and can be a major time sink. I would recommend that you allow the answer choices guide you through for NA questions. With practice, the correct NA will pop out to you when you read it.

Hey!

Thanks for stopping by! This is actually something I just heard for the first time yesterday! I'm actually really curious about how it works so I'd love it if you could explain your process? Maybe tell me some of the key triggers you see that make you go, "Ah-hah!"

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out why I was puzzled as well.

@jhaldy10325 Hey there! Thanks for getting back to us! I'd love it if you could elaborate on this process! Maybe with an example questions?

Thank you!

Did @jhaldy10325 ever get back to you on this? I'd love an answer too!

How do I know when I'm looking for an answer that strengthens the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, and when I'm looking for an answer/it's okay to pick an answer that strengthens the conclusion directly?

#help

Also, I feel like without having at least basic knowledge of supply and demand and related issues, this problem is impossible. Can someone show me how to POE or get to the right answer without referring to outside knowledge?

Hey there! So my first thought when I read this was, "Oh, assuming a causation relationship when all we have is a correlation." That isn't wrong, so how do I go from that realization to seeing that E is right?

#help

ugh. Same. I'm shattered

Hi there!

That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Thank you! I made it general just in case ;)

So I'm not sure I follow on #21. I honestly picked B because nothing else worked in the slightest. I was kind of (read: very) annoyed I couldn't figure out what would make B right, if it was. From my initial read I understand that H2 is persona non grata re the author. But, I don't know that I can say the author really supports H1 or says that it is an accurate explanation/the answer to the mirror issue (especially since the author mentions that H2 is correct to a point). At the most, I feel comfortable saying that because H1 seems to meet both criteria mentioned in the concluding paragraph, it at least has some necessary conditions met. But as we all know. It's not necessarily enough to meet necessary conditions.

So what am I missing?

#help

Okay, correction. I felt like I bombed it. I actually got all the answers right. But my point still stands! I felt like I wasn't quite sure of many of the answers I gave. Which feels like you've been annihilated on a timed test. Knowing where to look for answers to things (the structure of the passage) is so much more helpful than subject knowledge or a background in the material/subject.

Hahah, I understood everything in this passage and bombed it T.T

Subject knowledge really doesn't help!

So I approached this requiring too high a level of proof. I think because I took it to be a PSA question. How would I figure out/intuit mid game that this is more of an MSS type deal?

#help