Having problem conceptually with Lawgic

C.M. Hethcox

I can get through all the quizzes and exercises but I'm having a hard time knowing why or the meaning of things I'm doing. When I look at a SA question, instinctively it makes sense and just reading the question I can normally eliminate 2-3 wrong answers and narrow it down to 2 and if I re-read the Conclusion and Premises, I can pick the right answer. However, when I try to diagram it, it turns into a cluster fuck and I feel I just wasted a bunch of time. The last questions sets, thought, I can see why doing the diagram is important.

I need to understand how to know if an Assumption Question is Sufficient or Necessary, but I still don't understand the "why" aspect if that makes sense. I just read what I'm supposed to get out of the statment and try to predict what kind of answer they are
looking for after I read the argument then I just find what fits. I'm getting about 70% correct, but its the 30% that I know I can probably get a few more if I just understood the "why's" not just the "how". I just cant seem to get the logic to click.

I'm not even sure that this question makes sense. I get the whole X------->Y J A stuff, its the application I'm having problem with.

Is anyone else having a conceptual problem?

Prudenter Discere

Hey, how's your conceptual understanding of validity? Because understanding validity will help you approach SA or NA questions with greater confidence. Furthermore as you study, you're not going to master these concepts overnight. You will need to cycle back to studying validity, SA, NA to reach a point of mastery. But you can definitely master it. Also if your dealing with a specific question, post the question section, #, and the community will give you better feedback.

_oshun1_

keep clusterfucking until your diagrams look more or less like JYs. just take your time with it. Honestly if you have to process of elimination question for SA questions, you don’t really understand the argument in English nor in lawgic. If you can’t lawgic it out then you don’t really understand the argument. Your intuition isn’t foolproof. If you keep lawgicing it out it’ll eventually becoming second nature such that you just visualize the argument’s conditional relationship and don’t have to write it out.
Maybe try answering the questions by intuition and then afterward take the time to lawgic it out and also explain each argument in English.
Go over the beginning of the CC again re argument structure and all of those flash card quizzes where you have to translate English into lawgic.
And make sure to watch all the video explanations. It seems tedious when you feel like you have the hang of it and on easy level questions but a lot of times in the video JY brings up valuable things that you might have overlooked.

& The diff between sufficient and
necessary questions is that in SA you’re filling in the missing sufficient piece of the argument and in NA you’re filling in the necessary.
You need to go back over the beginning of the CC re conditional logic if you aren’t understanding the diff.

Alex

I had a similar issue with SA/PSA questions. On level 1-3 questions I could pretty much always intuit the correct answer. However, when there was a challenging SA/PSA question with advanced/confusing conditional logic, I would often fall for trick answer choices. It seems like the LSAC psychometricians safe guard against such people, lol.

If you feel like it's a clusterfuck when you diagram, I think that's a strong indicator that you need to work on your understanding of conditional logic. It's one of the most important concepts that undergird the LSAT.

You might get worse before you get better if you've been relying on intuition. I know that was the case for me. The thing is, you won't get better until you're better able to diagram and work out these questions. It's not even so much that the diagramming itself is that important as much as it is a means to and end. The better you get at diagramming conditional statements, the better you'll be at understanding them at a deeper level. The better you can do that, the faster and more confident you'll be when you see them on a PT.

keets993

I need to understand how to know if an Assumption Question is Sufficient or Necessary, but I still don't understand the "why" aspect if that makes sense

As for the 'how,' the most basic answer would be the question stem. Necessary questions will generally rely on group 2 (necessary) indicators such as "the argument requires which assumption." Whereas sufficient questions will use "if" or rely on the concept of the validity.

Unfortunately the why is a lot trickier. With sufficient assumption questions, I think you can generally spot the gap/anticipate the answer choice. They are also strong in terms of their strength because they help make the argument valid. With necessary questions, I always think of JY's example of being one of the greatest basketball players in the world, and how the level of strength required is simply "I am alive." The negation technique really helps when you are down to one or two answer choices because the negation of the correct answer choice completely wrecks the argument. I could be wrong but I don't think necessary assumptions rely on the lawgic the same way that some sufficient assumption questions do.

However, when I try to diagram it, it turns into a cluster fuck and I feel I just wasted a bunch of time.

You say you understand the X -> Y stuff so maybe the issue you are having is translating english to lawgic?

If that's the case then perhaps reviewing these two drills would be helpful. Are you able to do them really fast or does it take a while? I always have them open in separate tabs to quickly brush up. As well as the drills on chaining up conditional lawgic.
https://7sage.com/lesson/conditional-indicators-drill-flashcards/ https://7sage.com/lesson/distinguish-valid-from-invalid-forms-flashcards/

How do you do on MBT questions, since some of them also require you to make diagrams. I used to really struggle with translating english to lawgic and there was a specific question in the MBT section about concert listeneners that always used to trip me up and it was only when I was better at translating that I got better at diagramming.

C.M. Hethcox

@keets993 I really need to practice more. I know this. I think the main issue I'm having problem with isn't the work itself but why it matters. Example. People keep asking "can I treat NA questions like MBT questions?" I'm not understanding what that treatment is. I read the question stem and it tells me what the point of the question is but I don't do anything differently. If it says main point, I pick out the main point. If it says what must be true, then I find the answer that must be true to satisfy the argument. I can do the flash cards and get them right because I know what the answer is supposed to be, but I don't understand why the answer is what it is.
I find an indicator which tells me it a SA question vs a NA question. OK, I have this information because I know words such as "If" "When" "Unless", etc are indicators of the sufficient, but why does this help me? They both are questions missing major premises but I'm not sure why its important if its necessary or sufficient. I know what each word means, but I don't treat questions differently, and I need to do so. I've gone back over the lessons, but its just not clicking.

keets993

People keep asking "can I treat NA questions like MBT questions?" I'm not understanding what that treatment is.

@C.M. Hethcox Well to answer this part it might simply be the case that when people are learning how to handle a new question type they want to see how their previous understanding of a concept can be applied. I know that for me when I read the question stem it does make a slight difference to how I approach the stimulus. While you should always understand the structure of the argument (premise, conclusion) if I'm doing a strengthening question then I'll be examining the support and anticipating what could make the argument stronger. If it's an argument that's emphasizing a correlation between two ideas then in my head i'll be formulating ways that will strengthen that correlation. But if I am tackling a main point question then I won't be analyzing the support structure or if the conclusion is valid but the overall purpose of the argument. That's because it's more efficient that way, at least when I'm doing it timed.

What you've said about not treating your approach differently based on question type isn't necessarily wrong, especially if it's not hindering you. That's because the question type in LR is interchangeable but the structure that's similar. That's why you can tweak a "weaken" question into a stregthening question simply by analyzing the structure and trying to come up with your own ideas of what a strengthening answer choice would be.

The reason I asked how MBT questions are for you was simply to understand which part of your understanding of logic and diagramming needs more practice. For example, is it embedded conditionals, advances logic, joining statements together.

They both are questions missing major premises but I'm not sure why its important if its necessary or sufficient.

It's important because that's what the question is asking, and I know how incredibly unhelpful and superficial that sounds but the LSAT has a habit of making answer choices that would be correct for other question types as wrong answer for a specific question type. They often do this with necessary assumption questions where they have a sufficient assumption as the answer choice.

I can do the flash cards and get them right because I know what the answer is supposed to be, but I don't understand why the answer is what it is.

Can you give me a more specific example of this? Is it with the valid/invalid argument forms, group indicators, something else or a specific question? I used to have that issue where I would eliminate 3 or 4 answer choices (it varied across question types) but I wouldn't really understand why the correct answer choice was right, aside from the fact that it was the only one left.

I would perhaps suggest trying the cookie cutter review method by Sami. I saw it on another thread but it's basically where you analyze the structure of an argument that's giving you trouble and test your understanding of that argument by weakening, strengthening, filling in gaps. It might be helpful to take Sufficient Assumption question types and see what a necessary assumption would be and any other type of question you're having difficulty with. Getting a deeper understanding of how a stimulus for one question type can be used for a different type might help you understand why it's important if the question is asking for necessary or sufficient.

goingfor99th

This is how I understand SA questions:
https://i.imgur.com/6PqZNTN.jpg

Basically, you're asked to find in the answer choices some conditional linkage that completes the argument in the stimulus. That is the premise with an element common to a given premise and a different element common to the conclusion. In the example, the first premise and the conclusion would be given in the stimulus, and the second premise would be the correct answer choice.

I don't know if that helps. In NA, you're doing something different but for me it was easy to sometimes confuse the two since the two applications can be so similar/the same.