NA Questions on the Recent Exams.

StopLawying

Anyone feel like some of the correct answers to NA questions on the recent exams aren't really necessary?
On PT 71,S1, Q22 I see how this would be a sufficient assumption but don't see at all how it's necessary. Performing the negation test wouldn't really destroy the argument since we are only talking about predatory pricing, not ANY pricing practice. And I remember having a similar problem on PT63 Q11 where I thought there's no way the correct answer is necessary.
On older tests the negation technique proved very effective but I feel like it's actually hindering me on NA questions from the more recent tests. Any advice on how i can adjust? This used to be my favorite question type, now it's not! Want these questions to be automatic.

Q.E.D

Interesting. You're positive the NA isn't actually necessary? I'm curious about these examples. I didn't look closely at it, but PT 71.S1.Q11 seems to be about pollution. Is that the right reference? PT means PrepTest, right?

StopLawying

Sry, it was Q22, edited my original post.

Q.E.D

Comment deleted, too long-winded

Nicole Hopkins

@"◊ Q.E.D. ◊" said:
You're positive the NA isn't actually necessary

NA correct AC's= totally necessary. In fact, LSAC has published elaborate academic papers on this topic. So yeah, it's legit.

Nicole Hopkins

@StopLawying said:
predatory pricing, not ANY pricing practice

Consider whether "pricing" might be an umbrella under which "predatory pricing" might fall. Would pricing encompass all kinds of pricing including predatory? These are the kinds of questions I consider with my students on these "above and beyond"/SA-type NA AC's.

Nicole Hopkins

@StopLawying said:
On older tests the negation technique proved very effective but I feel like it's actually hindering me on NA questions from the more recent tests.

It's time to drop the crutch and start asking—"Is this necessary?" Sometimes the negation technique will unlock the AC; sometimes considering whether it's truly the bare necessary will help; sometimes considering "what'd BETTER be true—or this argument falls apart" is helpful.

Just remember...

DumbHollywoodActor

@"◊ Q.E.D. ◊" said:
Comment deleted, too long-winded

Don’t do that. Own your long-windedness. But you might want to ask what you’re assuming we know.

I think you have a lot to offer this forum, but I do think you have to remember the first rule of writing: know your audience.

Pacifico

I always thought the first rule of writing was: WRITE IN ALL CAPS.

Q.E.D

You're right, Hollywood. Noted. And thanks. I MEAN THANKS.

edit:

Sometimes the negation technique will unlock the AC; sometimes considering whether it's truly the bare necessary will help; sometimes considering "what'd BETTER be true—or this argument falls apart" is helpful.

That covers it. The point I tried to make in painstaking (and pointless) detail is simply that the answer need only be necessary in one of several possible ways.