Sufficient Assumption Questions

EmmaWI88

So overall, I either suck terribly at the SA questions during the PT process where I spend too much time on mapping out the lawgic or when I go over it during my blind review, I even sometimes get them wrong again. I have pulled SA questions from the question bank and plan on practicing them but I am wondering if anyone has any advice on how they improved on SA questions. JY basically said these should be freebies for you, but they're not freebies for me at all.

One thing I noticed I haven't been doing is labeling the conclusion and premises which I will definitely start doing.

Any advice/help/thoughts would be really helpful.

My PT score I got today was really disheartening. It had a lot of SA questions (more than usual) and that killed me.

Thanks

nessa.k13.0

Hi @EmmaWI88 , I came up with an idea and SA question approach after my notes from going through the CC, attending BR groups, and asking mentors questions about the nature of wrong and right SA answer choices. This idea is that when you map, you should ask yourself (and know) exactly 'why you do it?' and 'when does it help (or not help) you?' As I refined my approach to SA questions I noticed that my accuracy and speed started increasing. I will attempt to describe my developed systematic approach (from the notes I've made and the process) I use to answer SA questions correctly (the first two steps also improved my accuracy for many other question types). Here's my method for answering SA questions and my answer for whether I'm going to map a question or not. If your eyes don't glaze over first, I hope that you can extract something from this to help you!

1. First understand referential phrasing, if there is any (this could be you circling and drawing lines between referential phrasing or just repeating what the referential phrasing is referring to in the stimulus. This forced me to make sure I was not confusing the reasoning in the stimulus). I found that parsing the referential phrasing out, cut through the convoluted nature of some SA/PSA questions and enabled me to do the following...
2. Isolate the conclusion and note exactly what lines and variables the premises are (as separated from the context). I have found that when I do that, every time I'm able to nail down the missing link. I had to force myself to stop being lazy about this (meaning no more coasting over the question and thinking the support is generally the two lines above the conclusion--NOPE cut the vague mumbo jumbo because the LSAT answer choices can and will punish you for it). Each time I know what specific factors contribute to the specific conclusion factors.
3. I ask myself why/how the stimulus states the conclusion is the conclusion (meaning I take a look at the reasons they give as to 'why' in the premises). When I do that, I am able to surmise what the jump in logic is or what variables need to be connected.
4. Then I go to the answer choices looking for acs that address that jump, selecting the one(s) that would make the argument in the stimulus valid or close to it.
5. Select the answer that would make the reasoning flow logically (I'll detail how/when mapping plays into that if you keep reading)
I have found that when I force myself to anticipate the correct answer, I am able to both select the correct answer and jump to the acs that address the issue in the stimulus's logic. If I read a SA question stimulus and I don't get it during a PT--I skip. I don't map automatically anymore on PTs and I will not map unless I skipped the question and I've come back to it. I believe JY says SA questions are freebies because unlike most other question types, you can know what the correct answer is before you look at the answer choices.

As for mapping questions out (after I skipped it the first time I read it), I stopped writing down SA questions every time because it can be a waste of time during a timed PT especially if you aren't getting to the right answer. I think it can be great to map conditional logic every time if it makes you answer the question accurately and in a shorter amount of time. If it does not, then I recommend being relentlessly rigorous in your understanding the reasoning in the stimulus first---know (or be able to point to) exactly how the conclusion is supported (know which variables/factors lead to what?). Basically #2 is essential. I learned that I was being pretty lazy and not actively engaged during my stimulus break down process and that was costing me SA questions. I decided to only map things out depending upon my ability to understand the reasoning after I have come back to this question because skipped it. If I cannot point to the exact variables and factors that yield the conclusion and see the jump in the reasoning, I'll map the question meaning I start scribbling the variables that add up to the stimulus's conclusion. Just to be clear, in that case, it means that I went to my step #1 and after repeating or drawing direct connections to any referential phrasing, I couldn't understand precisely what points support the conclusion and I didn't have a clear understanding of the reasoning from #2, then and only then, I do I find it necessary to map. Basically, I map only because I cannot understand the reasoning from looking at the stimulus. When I do map, I abbreviate the variables and arrange how they yield the conclusion depending upon if there is conditional logic or not.

It's tough because some of those PSA questions have general ideas with fluid meanings and sometimes do not use conditional logic at all. I wasted too much time trying to make all arguments flow in a conditional logic form, when the stimuli didn't use conditional reasoning. I've noticed that some 7sagers, in addition to myself, have wasted a lot of time trying to decipher the coding (abbreviations you made that connect to certain variables) and map out all SA arguments in a conditional way, when it may not make sense to do so. If you need to map the reasoning to get the question correct, just be really careful not to map out arguments in a conditional relationship or think there is a conditional relationship, if there is not in fact conditional logic in the stimulus. This (all my blathering above) is why I decided to only map out these questions in a formal manner, if I couldn't identify the variables in the reasoning and grasp how it flowed. Mapping wasn't time efficient for me, but it may be able to help you. If you know why you map and it helps you, then keep mapping out your questions. My SA accuracy and time really changed when I became much more discerning about how/why I map questions out (damn this was much longer than I intended haha).

I hope my SA essay helps you!

Alex

@nessa.k13.0 completely nailed it! Couldn't have said it better my self!

EmmaWI88

Wow thank you so much!! I find mapping does help me but I think part of my issue may in fact be the referential phrasing throwing me off and mapping things that may in fact not even have conditional logic. Thanks again! Super helpful!

nessa.k13.0

@"Alex Divine" thanks

@EmmaWI88 I'm glad this was able to help you. You are very welcome. Once you practice and make adjustments, please let me know how it goes with SA questions!!!