Necessary Assumption questions

veirshunter

I haven't completed finished all the questions in the lesson plan, but I've done enough to figure out that I'm not getting it yet. I keep picking the SA choice, without fail. I do the negation "/NA -> /VA" and it works, obviously. So I circle it and move on. So i've got two problems here.

On NA questions, should I recognize that I need to read all the answer choices on a NA question?
Is there a better way to read through them for time sake?

Is their specific language that I should be looking for in the NA question?
I noticed the SA answer choices for NA questions, that they generally have an All, Every or similar modifier. Should I immediately throw a mental flag when I see these modifiers?

James Ray

Hi Verishunter,

NA questions were one of the ones that I focused on the most because I feel they are extremely challenging.

Here is what I recommend. Remember that SA questions are broader statements. There are questions where the NA and is also an SA but there aren't tons of these. I think you need to read all the answer choices until you find one that fits, just like always. The idea here is that the argument is going to give you one of two possibilities. Either the argument seems to be missing something, missing an idea to link the premise and the conclusion, in which case you need to find that and supply it. This type, I feel, is easier. Why? Because if you know how to identify each of the argument parts, you know what is premise and what is conclusion and you can see if there is a need for an additional premise to allow for the conclusion to be drawn.

The second type is a shielding question. This is harder because it can mean anything. There could be any number of answers that say "X is not a Y." Or a Z or a W or a J. In this case, if you know you are looking for shielding, you know you need to find something that is accomplishing that.

How is this very different than SA?
Simply put, SA is giving you something encompassing that will force the conclusion to be true. You don't need to link and you don't need to shield. You need to force the conclusion to be true.

I do not think that flagging certain modifiers is a good idea. I think it results in you trying to lean on that during a pressure situation and you will often choose the wrong answer because it has language that you are familiar with. Ultimately, you just need to understand what is being asked of you and try to provide that.

harrismegan

I have tried to look at NA in various ways, but I have found this most effective:
Just do them like any other question.

Identify the Conclusion
Identify the Premise

Then. There are two types. And identifying which type it is determines how you solve it.

If the premise and the conclusion are not related, it is a bridge. Find the answer choice that links the two statements. You won’t necessarily have to negate this answer for it to fit. In most cases, I would say, you wouldn’t have to negate at all.

If the two statements are related, the premise and the conclusion, I find this one harder to solve. Just Negate the conclusion, negate the answer choices, and find which one matches.

I took an LSAT prep course last weekend, and the instructor told us to do it this way and I have found significant improvements.

Negate the conclusion. Negate the answer choice. One will match.

However, approach them in the same way you do all questions.

1. Conclusion
2. Premise

Bridge - find the bridge.
Shield - negate both. Find the match.

veirshunter

Thanks for your answers. Both are great. I'll focus on the P -> C, see how they linked and make the shield/bridge judgment. Hopefully, this will help!

Thanks for not pointing out my their/there mistake. Anything causing frustration can lead to mistakes.

LSATPWNAGE

I was making the same mistakes. I had to discipline myself to read every answer choice if I wasn't 100% sure. I mean, I've answered so many of those and gotten them wrong because I was rushing and only about 95% sure.