Necessary Assumption being also Sufficient Assumptions

rayeli2018

I have seen a few questions in which NA is actually an SA or a weaker form of SA ( --> in SA to -- most --> in NA, otherwise the same). I understand that NA and SA has different logical relationship with a valid argument (Any SA -> VA -> All NAs), and that NA does not require as strong / absolute a claim as often seen in SA.

In what cases can NA / SA become equivalent then? Is there a definite logical relationship between SA / NA? I.e., SA -> NA, where NA includes SA? Thank you!

Isabella-2

Do you have an example? Usually the NA doesn't actually strengthen anything, it's an assumption that must be true for your argument to follow - if it isn't then the argument falls apart. SA questions usually bridge premises to conclusion. There are NA questions that involve bridging