I suck at assumption questions

randolphportugal

Hey 7Sagers,

I've been studying for at least a year now But for some reason I have so much trouble trying to correctly answer Assumption, Sufficient Assumption and Necessary Assumption questions. I have gone over the curriculum and been utilizing negation tests, conditional logic, etc. But I am simply not improving. Does anyone have a certain method that works for them? Or am I doomed? I have been scoring 16 questions on LR sections but that would be higher if I got more Assumption questions correct. Any thoughts?

Admin edit: Please don't yell! The admins scare easily. (Caps from title removed.)

jknauf

Learn the valid argument forms. For sufficient assumptions, you want to be a fine tuned machine. You want to develop a mechanical process @"Cant Get Right" compiled one on another thread, I'll post it below

@"Cant Get Right" said:
Here's a way to break these down that might be beneficial. I don't diagram anymore, but I think my intuitive process is something like this. I think it would make for a good exercise. If you can identify all these variables quickly and accurately, they always interact the same way.

Step One: Identify the variables.

Frequently, this is the real challenge of SA questions. They can make this incredibly difficult, and it's a task that I feel like is often overlooked as something that needs to be approached deliberately.

So let's say our variables are:
A --> B --> C
A
therefore
X

Step Two: Identify the trigger.

The trigger is the variable that is confirmed by the argument which sets the conditional chain into motion. A --> B --> C is largely meaningless. By providing the non-conditional A, they trigger the chain. A is the trigger. In some arguments, there is no trigger, and you will need to provide one in the AC. This argument would look something like:

A --> B --> C
therefore
C

Our answer would simply be A here.

Step Three: Identify the hanger.

If they're not just looking for a trigger, there's more to do. Once we know our variables, there will be one that is left hanging--a triggered live-wire that dead ends. This variable is frequently the sufficient variable in our AC with our conclusion in the necessary (although they could flip it, of course). In this chain, our hanger is C.

Step Four: Pair the hanger variable with the conclusion.

C --> X
or
/X --> /C

They do have a few variations they can use to complicate this, but they're pretty simple. The most common would be to have the conclusion represented as an untriggered conditional like:

A --> B --> C
A
therefore
D --> X

It's basically the same thing though. In Step Four, you pair your live hanger with the dead sufficient condition from the conclusion in order to charge it:

C --> D

Hope this helps. You don't want to rely on this or mapping either on the real thing, but they are good exercises in order to learn to see how it all fits together. Just remember to identify your variables at the beginning! That's normally the hard part!

Alex

@sufficiency said:
Hey 7Sagers,

I've been studying for at least a year now But for some reason I have so much trouble trying to correctly answer Assumption, Sufficient Assumption and Necessary Assumption questions. I have gone over the curriculum and been utilizing negation tests, conditional logic, etc. But I am simply not improving. Does anyone have a certain method that works for them? Or am I doomed? I have been scoring 16 questions on LR sections but that would be higher if I got more Assumption questions correct. Any thoughts?

Hmm... Are you having trouble understanding the logic behind what you're looking for with NA/SA questions? For instance, do you fully understand the difference between necessity and sufficiency?

In any case, you aren't doomed. If you do understand those things, I would recommend the same thing Jknauf wrote above. Learning valid argument forms and utilizing a strategy like @"Cant Get Right" outlined in the past is your best bet.

Just out of curiosity, what other question types are giving you trouble?

jaefromcanada

I was the same way as you for assumption questions. A part of the difficulty in these questions are understanding the stimulus. Make sure to slow down and fully understand. (As well as all the other advice given above).

extramedium

Identifying the elements is usually the most important part for me, and going back to the quizzes on sufficient assumptions helped with both.

Necessary assumptions are a complete horror show. The answer is often unpredictable. The bridging questions are usually easy, but the blocking questions are a nightmare.

randolphportugal

@jknauf said:
Learn the valid argument forms. For sufficient assumptions, you want to be a fine tuned machine. You want to develop a mechanical process @"Cant Get Right" compiled one on another thread, I'll post it below

@"Cant Get Right" said:
Here's a way to break these down that might be beneficial. I don't diagram anymore, but I think my intuitive process is something like this. I think it would make for a good exercise. If you can identify all these variables quickly and accurately, they always interact the same way.

Step One: Identify the variables.

Frequently, this is the real challenge of SA questions. They can make this incredibly difficult, and it's a task that I feel like is often overlooked as something that needs to be approached deliberately.

So let's say our variables are:
A --> B --> C
A
therefore
X

Step Two: Identify the trigger.

The trigger is the variable that is confirmed by the argument which sets the conditional chain into motion. A --> B --> C is largely meaningless. By providing the non-conditional A, they trigger the chain. A is the trigger. In some arguments, there is no trigger, and you will need to provide one in the AC. This argument would look something like:

A --> B --> C
therefore
C

Our answer would simply be A here.

Step Three: Identify the hanger.

If they're not just looking for a trigger, there's more to do. Once we know our variables, there will be one that is left hanging--a triggered live-wire that dead ends. This variable is frequently the sufficient variable in our AC with our conclusion in the necessary (although they could flip it, of course). In this chain, our hanger is C.

Step Four: Pair the hanger variable with the conclusion.

C --> X
or
/X --> /C

They do have a few variations they can use to complicate this, but they're pretty simple. The most common would be to have the conclusion represented as an untriggered conditional like:

A --> B --> C
A
therefore
D --> X

It's basically the same thing though. In Step Four, you pair your live hanger with the dead sufficient condition from the conclusion in order to charge it:

C --> D

Hope this helps. You don't want to rely on this or mapping either on the real thing, but they are good exercises in order to learn to see how it all fits together. Just remember to identify your variables at the beginning! That's normally the hard part!

Thanks a lot! Yeah I have been memorizing the valid argument forms but for some reason I often "bridge the gap by adding the wrong piece of the puzzle" to get to the right answer choice. It's difficult to explain but sometimes I would get a question wrong because I think I'm piecing some conditional statements in the wrong order,place, or direction.

An example would be LSAT 35 S.4 Question 14

Marian Anderson, the famous contralto, did not take success for granted. We know this because Anderson had to struggle early in life, and anyone who has to struggle early in life is able to keep a good perspective on the world.

A) Anyone who succeeds takes for granted.
Anyone who is able to keep a good perspective on the world does not take success for granted.
C) Anyone who is able to keep a good perspective on the world has to struggle early in life.
D) Anyone who does not take success for granted has to struggle early in life.
E)Anyone who does not take success for granted is able to keep a good perspective on the world.

LEGEND:
ASL = Anyone who had to struggle early in life
PKG = Keep a good perspective
DTSG = Does not take success for granted

The argument basically sets up as
ASL --> PKG

 ASL (Anderson)

---

DTSG(Anderson) 

The correct answer choice is B. I got it wrong. B looks like this.
PKG --> DTSG

And you basically would have to add this answer choice to the end of the first conditional statement above. And it would look like this:
ASL --> PKG --> DTSG

 ASL (Anderson)

---

DTSG(Anderson) 

My mistake would be something like picking either D or E since DTSG could point to either the ASL or PKG. Basically I would piece the argument incorrectly because I think to myself, “maybe I can bridge the gap by saying all DTSG are ASL or PKG. .” And then suddenly it just happens to be easier than that where I just have to add the DTSG at the end of the first conditional statement.

Is this a reasoning error of mine because I don’t fully understand the Valid Argument Forms? I’m not sure if this makes sense. I tend to put pieces in the wrong places still.

randolphportugal

@"Alex Divine" said:

@sufficiency said:
Hey 7Sagers,

I've been studying for at least a year now But for some reason I have so much trouble trying to correctly answer Assumption, Sufficient Assumption and Necessary Assumption questions. I have gone over the curriculum and been utilizing negation tests, conditional logic, etc. But I am simply not improving. Does anyone have a certain method that works for them? Or am I doomed? I have been scoring 16 questions on LR sections but that would be higher if I got more Assumption questions correct. Any thoughts?

Hmm... Are you having trouble understanding the logic behind what you're looking for with NA/SA questions? For instance, do you fully understand the difference between necessity and sufficiency?

In any case, you aren't doomed. If you do understand those things, I would recommend the same thing Jknauf wrote above. Learning valid argument forms and utilizing a strategy like @"Cant Get Right" outlined in the past is your best bet.

Just out of curiosity, what other question types are giving you trouble?

I guess I'm having trouble setting up which conditional statements piece together. But I fee llike I am strong in knowing my logical indicators. And to be honest know. I don't fully understand those types of questions I suppose. I know one is sufficient in "bridging the gap" and in Necessary Assumption Questions,I know I need to find the one that is REQUIRED for the argument to work and I can use the negation test but I still end up getting those wrong... Other question types I usually get wrong are MBT and Inference questions

randolphportugal

@jaefromcanada said:
I was the same way as you for assumption questions. A part of the difficulty in these questions are understanding the stimulus. Make sure to slow down and fully understand. (As well as all the other advice given above).

Thank you! I'll be sure to slow down and try to understand completely what I am reading

randolphportugal

@extramedium said:
Identifying the elements is usually the most important part for me, and going back to the quizzes on sufficient assumptions helped with both.

Necessary assumptions are a complete horror show. The answer is often unpredictable. The bridging questions are usually easy, but the blocking questions are a nightmare.

I feel the same about N.A. questions! I tend to negate the wrong answer choice and that kills me during Practice tests.

tanes256

@randolphportugal have you watched the webinars on SA and NA? They helped me tremendously. I think it was just the language that he used. For some reason things like "trigger" and "just enough" stuck out to me and made me fully understand the task for these question types. Sometimes you just need a different perspective to completely grasp it.