Difference Between MSS and SA Questions

DontPay4LawSchool

I grasp the concepts behind both -- or at least I think I do. I am having a problem truly explaining to myself the substantive difference between the two. The way I imagine Sufficient Assumption questions is that they are the invisible connector between the premise and conclusion of an argument. Similarly, MSS questions ask what would most likely be true given the argument made. In a sense, I feel as though a SA would count as a most strongly supported item from an argument. Is there a better way to understand these question types without overlapping their definitions too much?

BinghamtonDave

I think you are very close. I look at MSS as pretty much exactly what you said: given the statements in the argument, which of the answer choices is most likely to be true. Notice we are pulling something from the argument to support an answer choice.

SA questions are a bit different. The main form is closer to a strengthener in my opinion than a MSS. There can certainly be some overlap, but on SA questions we are essentially saying: what can we add from the answer choices to support the idea that the conclusion given in the problem is more likely to follow from that premise(s) given in the problem?

SAs took me a long time to understand. I think it's because spelling out/articulating exactly what I was supposed to do is not something I was used to doing in my every day life. Take for instance the very reasonable argument that says:

-The NFL player Tom Brady has won 6 Super Bowls
-Therefore Tom Brady is the greatest NFL player of all time

In regular every day speak this seems like a very reasonable argument, essentially if someone were to say this to me when I wasn't in "LSAT mode" I would know what they are saying. But on the LSAT we would want to spell this out explicitly, because there is a gap between that premise and that conclusion: namely that the number of Super Bowls someone has won has something to do with GOAT considerations, (this is a bit weaker than a traditional SA to be honest, but we can phrase that "bridge" stronger if we'd like).

DontPay4LawSchool

So, just a simple follow-up question: would you consider SA to be more of an implicit extension from the argument as opposed to MSS being more explicit?

Riddled Basins of Attention

I think you're missing something significant. The credited response on a SA question is far stronger than a mere connector between premise and conclusion; it ensures that the conclusion is true. In other words, when added to the argument in the stimulus, the right answer will guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

MSS questions are very often sets of facts (not arguments) and thus the credited response need not have any connection to a conclusion or a premise. The right answer is simply the statement that can be best proven given the information in the stimulus. For example, check out PT 32, 1, 24. This is the infamous MSS question about "brown dwarf" celestial objects. You will find no argument here.

FindingSage

These are very different questions types and also requires very different approaches.

Mss questions are a top down question type meaning that the stimulus can support what conclusion. I treat MSS questions like a soft must be true. To approach this question type, as I am reading I am translating the sentences into plain English and pushing the sentence up into the sentence before it. By the end of the stimulus I have typically drawn some basic inferences or conclusions and while I can't always predict the exact answer choice I often know exactly what we are looking for because I have already pushed out the inference on my own. So based on the premises I know what you can and can not conclude. This question type generally features softer language as correct answer choices using words such as " sometimes", " often", " could" and " might" as examples. To improve on this question I would suggest doing some of these untimed. Translate the stimulus in your own words ( write it down if you need to) and then write out a few different conclusions you are able to draw based on the stimulus. While you won't always predict the correct answer you will see that the LSAT likes to draw the same type of conclusions over and over again using different subject matter of course. With practice you will start to see some of these patterns. I would also practice must be true questions to improve on this question type.

Sufficient assumption questions are bottom up questions meaning that which of the answer choices if added to the stimulus would allow you to draw the conclusion already given? Sufficient assumption questions are about creating valid arguments and provide the bridge or missing piece that creates a valid argument. In other words they are the ultimate strengthener. If you were answering a strengthening question and multiple answer choices strengthened the argument you would pick the answer choice that strengthened the question so much it created a valid argument hands down every time. Now, what is difficult about the hardest strengthen questions is sometimes they just keep an argument alive or block a weakener but still if you could make up an answer choice you would create an answer choice the links the premises to the conclusion and creates a valid argument. This is similar to what a sufficient assumption is doing it. It is the missing piece that links the premises to the conclusion and proves the argument. Common argument forms are: A--B or A---B---C or even D. These argument forms as well as contrapositives are used all the time. The LSAT writers cleverly hide these simple argument forms behind convoluted language or difficult subject matter. Or for contrapositives the LSAT writers are also testing our ability to see what would create a valid argument and also knowing how to recognize its contrapositive. One of the questions that throws newer LSAT students off the most is a question that looks deceivingly simple, it is only a couple of sentences and is a SA question about being loved, but the correct answer is expressed in the form of a contrapositive which hides it well. Sufficient assumption questions typically use stronger language like "Always", "Never" "None" ect. To practice these I suggest reviewing valid argument forms until they are memorized ( flash cards helped alot at that time) and then create problem sets with SA, PSA and NA questions to practice the differences.