My Approach to Sufficient Assumption Questions

HelloMoto

I see a lot of posts out there that are kind of like guides to tackling specific question types so I thought I would post my own about SA questions. What I remember quite vividly from studying SA questions is someone saying that if you're aiming for a really high score, SA questions should be freebies. He said this because SA questions, along with MBT questions, are the most formulaic LR question type.

Key points to tackling SA questions:

1. Dissect the stimulus
   A crucial part of getting SA questions right is to fill the missing piece that connects the premise(s) in the stimulus to the conclusion in order to make the argument valid. In order to get a clearer picture of this bridge that is needed, one needs to clearly identify what the premises are and what the conclusion is.

2. Identify the Bridge
   In basically every SA question (probably most LR questions in general) there will be a gap in the argument. The argument will conclude something, while not having VALID support from the premises. For SA questions, we need to find something that will sufficiently bridge this gap and if inserted, will make the argument VALID. No if ands or buts, the correct AC will (in combination with the premises) make the argument a valid argument.

Simple Framework:
For example:
Premise A
Premise B

Therefore Conclusion

To make this argument valid we either need:
If A --> Conclusion (or the contrapositive)
If B --> Conclusion (or the contrapositive)

Example 2:
Mark has been sick and has not been able to go to soccer practice for the past week.
It rained today so the field will be wet.

Therefore, Mark will lose the game tomorrow.

How did this argument conclude that Mark will lose the game tomorrow just because he missed practice and the field is wet. In order to bridge this argument and make it valid, we need something like:
If Mark doesn't go to soccer practice for a week --> Mark will lose the game tomorrow.
If the field is wet --> Mark will lose the game tomorrow.

One point I want to emphasize is that we don't necessarily need "If Mark doesn't go to practice for a week --> Mark will lose the game tomorrow". If we had something that said "If Mark doesn't go to practice for one day --> Mark will lose the game tomorrow" this would also work!

We can even create bridges from the fact that Mark has been sick and that it rained.
If Mark is sick --> Mark will lose the game tomorrow.
If it rains --> Mark will lose the game tomorrow.

Tips to Identifying the Bridge:

Look for stronger ACs
In general, we are looking for stronger ACs since they are able to directly send you from the premises to the conclusion.
For example, what if there was a AC like this:
Sometimes if the field is wet, Mark doesn't play very well

This statement doesn't take you directly to the conclusion. Sure, sometimes when its wet Mark doesn't play very well, but does that mean he WILL/FOR SURE lose the game tomorrow?

If there is a new term introduced in the conclusion that wasn't mentioned in the premises, look for an AC that incorporates this new term.

Be very suspicious if there is a new term introduced in the conclusion. In this argument, how would we ever get to conclude that x will y if x is never brought up in the premises. The AC needs to incorporate x (or a set that includes x) in order for us to conclude ANYTHING about x.

These are just a few things that has helped me get better at SA questions and I hope this helps out anyone else!