NA and SA Questions

Martin01

I totally understand the difference between these two question types. However, when SA questions are not logic based, I pick the answer choice that keeps the conclusion 100% in tact, similar to NA questions.

By doing this, I am getting at least 80% correct and I just started to use this method. However, if this method will backfire on future questions, I will stop doing this despite the good accuracy. And, I do not want to start bad habits because they are so hard to break.

Can someone please chime in and tell me what you fellow 7 Sage students' think about this strategy?

runiggyrun

I believe that you might have some lingering confusion about these two. You say that "for SA I pick the choice that keeps the conclusion 100% intact, similar to NA questions"
NA doesn't need to "keep the conclusion 100% intact" (by which I understand it to guarantee the conclusion - apologies if you meant something else). NA just needs to allow the conclusion to happen (and a useful test is the negation test - if the NA is negated, the conclusion can't happen).
SA does need to guarantee the conclusion. But negating it doesn't necessarily negate the conclusion.
Example: Argument : Bill is a man. Therefore Bill is hairy.
An extreme example of NA would be is "At least one man is hairy". It is necessary that this is true for the argument to be valid (if no men are hairy, Bill can't be hairy), but it doesn't guarantee the conclusion. Bill could still be one of the other, hairless men.
A SA would be "All men are hairy". It is not necessary that this is true for the argument to be valid (Bill could still be hairy if not all men are), but it is sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. Bill has to be hairy.
Of course the LSAT questions are a lot more subtle than these, but the basic process is the same:
For a NA question, the correct answer will be the one that would obliterate the conclusion if false
For a SA question the correct answer will be the one that guarantees the conclusion. It being false doesn't necessarily make the argument invalid.