difference between Suff. Assumptions vs. Nec. Assumptions that act as a "bridge."

lsat_novice

Hi everyone,

I'm confused about the difference between Sufficient Assumptions vs. Necessary Assumptions that act as a "bridge."

I understand that sometimes answer choices can be both sufficient and necessary.

And I know that sometimes the LSAT writers include a sufficient assumption answer choice as a trap when the question stem asks for a necessary assumption.

Would anyone be able to shed some light on the difference between Sufficient Assumptions and Necessary Assumptions that act as a "bridge"?

As an example, PT 44, Section 4, question 7 is relevant. https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-07/

Thank you!

ShanShan

I'm not sure about this NAQ as a bridge statement but one BIG difference between NAQ and SAQ is that a NAQ must be true. If you negate that statement, your argument can no longer stand. A SAQ addresses your conclusion and makes the perfect argument so no holes can be poked into it if that answer choice is selected