Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 25 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
1 Like
Any Good Resources for Suff. Assumption Strategy?
Controller779
Alum Member
I'm totally thrown on S.U questions; I've been back through the theory videos and still get 100% of the questions wrong. During BR I can't seem to understand why right questions are right and why wrong questions are wrong.
My logic skills, during the letter exercises (drawing inferences, etc) are strong; things seem to just fall apart when having to instead deal with word-based stimuli and logic structures that are not as clear cut as they were during the theory exercises.
Does anyone have an external resources they know of that could help bridge the gap? If so, I'd be very grateful and may even be able to avoid going totally grey before October
Thanks.
My logic skills, during the letter exercises (drawing inferences, etc) are strong; things seem to just fall apart when having to instead deal with word-based stimuli and logic structures that are not as clear cut as they were during the theory exercises.
Does anyone have an external resources they know of that could help bridge the gap? If so, I'd be very grateful and may even be able to avoid going totally grey before October
Thanks.
Comments
It sounds to me to like your a lsat beginner so keep on drilling. For me the drawing inferences didn't work because I found it troubling to draw out the inferences when I hit a long stimulus. Manhatten LR teaches you to use your head and understand the argument without drawing out the inferences.
I'll probably hold off on any more S.U. questions until it comes, and just work on other areas of the 7Sage syllabus.
My god LSAT, what have you done to me!
At any rate, sufficient assumption questions really require reading carefully. A lot of the times, the right answer to the sufficient assumption question bridges a term shift.
For instance, let's say we have something like this:
Premise: All ring-bearers can reside in Valinor.
LAWGIC FORM: RB --> Valinor
------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Frodo can reside in Valinor.
LAWGIC FORM: Frodo --> Valinor
In this example, we have a subject shift. We're introduced to the subject/noun "ring-bearer" in the premise but then all of a sudden there's no mention of "ring-bearer" in the conclusion. Instead, we have this object called "Frodo." Yet, both subjects carry the same necessary condition ("ring-bearers" and apparently "Frodo" can reside in Valinor). That means we need a sentence that connects these two subjects. Something like: Frodo is a ring-bearer. (LAWGIC FORM: Frodo --> RB) Voila! Now that we know Frodo is a ring bearer, and that all ring bearers can reside in Valinor, it must absolutely be true that Frodo can also reside in Valinor.
If you diagram this, it should look something like:
(Frodo --> RB) <--- this is the answer that we need
RB --> Valinor
------------
Frodo --> Valinor
If it helps you, try diagramming the lawgic out. It's a lot easier to catch the term shift when you observe the lawgic form as opposed to normal-English form.
I think my train of thought genuinely was "Sufficient Ussumption".
So many hours of LSAT has me operating phonetically...!