Necessary

Comments

• 3 Likes

  J.CHRIS.ALST Alum Member

  February 2018 edited February 2018 399 karma

  They are certainly similar and having these types of realizations directly pertains to something that JY mentions consistently in CC - that the LR section questions, while distinct from each other are simultaneously all very closely related. I think this particular understanding could potentially help one differentiate SA from NA.

  But, one large difference between the two types is that a NA stimulus will 100% of the time be an argument, whereas MBT stimuli are sometimes just information dumps, and other times they do have arguments. For a MBT questoin what I'm thinking to myself while reading stimulus and the ACs is "what can I infer from the stimulus?" Or, "what does the stimulus imply?" And the answer could be focused on some minutia that is derived from the stimulus. Sometimes the stimulus will be super specific about any given topic, and then the correct AC will kind of zoom out. For instance, if most people like the LSAT, suffice to say that at least some people like the LSAT (very watered down example).

  In terms of NA question, the AC is typically bridging a certain aspect mentioned in the premise of argument to the conclusion, or it is blocking xyz from being true because if xyz were true, the argument would crumble. One should try and focus on not making the argument not necessarily better, per say, but rather just preventing it from being invalid/destroyed. For MBT, one need not think this way.

  "Must" and "Necessary" definitely do imply the same things logically, but as far the question types go there are distinctions. So I would definitely agree the two types are similar, but the approaches for the two types should vary.
• 1 Like

  Lsatkayy Alum Member

  February 2018 162 karma

  Wow. Thanks