Subscription pricing
Hi everyone! I have a question regarding necessary assumption questions. I am trying to get a better understanding of NA questions, since this is the area I am struggling with. I seem to be going for answers that seem relevant and may strengthen the argument, but are not needed/required.
For example, let's use this example from lsat trainer,
Argument: "Because we locked the door, no one can break into our house."
A possible correct answer choice may look like: "One cannot break into the house going through the chimney."
Wrong answer: "The door is the only way in and out of the house, and the locked door is impenetrable."
Here is a second example:
Argument: "My husband says I consume too much caffeine, but that is false. I only drink one cup of coffee a day, and one cup of coffee is not too much caffeine for a person to consume daily."
A possible correct answer choice: "She does not get an excess of caffeine from drinking tea."
Wrong answer choice: "Coffee is the only substance she consumes that contains caffeine."
The problem that I am having with these two examples from lsat trainer is that I am not seeing how the wrong answer is wrong. I understand for NA questions we are looking for an answer choice that is needed in order for the argument to be true. I did the negation test for the wrong answer choices and they still seem correct. For example in the second argument, the wrong answer choice is "coffee is the only substance she consumes that contains coffee" and in my mind when I did the negation test it was "it is not the case that coffee is the only substance she consumes that contains caffeine" or "coffee is not the only substance she consumes that contains caffeine." If that is true, couldn't this be an answer that is required for the argument?? If coffee is not the only substance she consumes that contains caffeine couldn't this wreck the argument??
Any help is appreciated! Thanks everyone!
Hi, let me take a crack at it. The stimulus talks about this new police program and how there are car owners that can display a special decal and allow cops to stop their cars during a certain time period. The stimulus goes on to state that the theft rate for cars bearing such decals is lower... The question stem for this one is interesting because the conclusion is in the question stem "if it is concluded from the statements above that automobile theft has been reduced by the program...."
We can see that the author is trying to make a causal argument. The argument being that automobile theft has been reduced by the program! So one thing you can ask yourself is maybe there is another reason or alternate explanation? Even though there might be a correlation, is the police program (special decals) the reason why car theft is much lower for cars with special decals?
With answer choice C- Are cars in neighborhoods that are actively participating in the program sometimes stolen during daylight hours? What if you say yes to this question. Does that weaken the argument or help us in any way? No. Imagine if you answered yes to this question, the author tell us that theft rate for cars with these decals is much lower. Also, I do no think it matters what time they were stolen. Sure some were stolen during the day-time but the question stem/stimulus is concerned with the effectiveness of the program. The program being the reason for the reduction of theft!
Hope this helps and feel free to message me.