Sufficient/Necessary

Krithin S.

AC: "mistakes a condition sufficient for bringing about a result for a condition necessary for doing so".

I was confused by the wording of this choice, and was wondering if there was a simple explanation. It's flipping something N --> S , is what I am thinking.

kkole444

@"Krithin S." Yes, the AC is saying that the stimulus/argument is taking something that is a necessary condition and making it a sufficient condition. You can confirm the necessary condition and the sufficient could happen it is not guaranteed though. If you confirm the sufficient condition the necessary condition follows.

yunonsie

Exactly. I also think this exact flaw shows up when you have an argument that says, "solving our problem in this particular way guarantees the results we want. So we need to do this in order to get the results we want." Just in a more text based form.

kkole444

@yunonsie yes. @"Krithin S." The test makers at LSAC have come up with like 8+ ways to say sufficient necessity confusion. Once you see them and parse them out, you will be able to move though them quickly. The LSAC likes to throw the densely worded sufficiency/necessity confusion in many flaw questions and once you see them all they are pretty obvious to spot and they can be quickly eliminated or selected.