It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- 29.9K All Categories
- 25.3K LSAT
- 15.7K General
- 26 Sage Advice
- 4.5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.2K Reading Comprehension
- 1.6K Logic Games
- 65 Podcasts
- 186 Webinars
- 5 Scholarships
- 189 Test Center Reviews
- 1.7K Study Groups
- 98 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.2K Specific LSAT Dates
- 10 June 2023 LSAT
- 3 April 2023 LSAT
- 9 February 2023 LSAT
- 25 January 2023 LSAT
- 4.5K Not LSAT
- 3.7K Law School Admissions
- 8 Law School Explained
- 11 Forum Rules
- 502 Technical Problems
- 265 Off-topic

Lsatbreakingnews
Alum Member

What is the overlap between these two concepts? It seems like answer choices need to be on a certain side of the arrow to be correct.

## Comments

In classical logics, there's something called the deduction theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deduction_theorem) which intimately relates these two things, i.e. "if P, then Q" is valid iff "P. Therefore, Q" is valid.

On the LSAT, you won't really need to understand this nuance. Sufficient conditions are analogous to premises, and necessary conditions are analogous to conclusions. They're not exactly the same (conditional statements are truth-apt, arguments aren't), but conceptually, it may help to understand the analogy between the two.

Okay so there is no way to know that a sufficient condition has occured then. Only that it has not occured. And we cannot conclude something if it is not in the necessary condition? Im confused as f**** about something but im not exactly sure what. ahaha.