Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

difference between Suff. Assumptions vs. Nec. Assumptions that act as a "bridge."

lsat_novicelsat_novice Member
in Logical Reasoning 18 karma

Hi everyone,

I'm confused about the difference between Sufficient Assumptions vs. Necessary Assumptions that act as a "bridge."

I understand that sometimes answer choices can be both sufficient and necessary.

And I know that sometimes the LSAT writers include a sufficient assumption answer choice as a trap when the question stem asks for a necessary assumption.

Would anyone be able to shed some light on the difference between Sufficient Assumptions and Necessary Assumptions that act as a "bridge"?

As an example, PT 44, Section 4, question 7 is relevant. https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-07/

Thank you!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • ShanShanShanShan Free Trial Member
    52 karma

    I'm not sure about this NAQ as a bridge statement but one BIG difference between NAQ and SAQ is that a NAQ must be true. If you negate that statement, your argument can no longer stand. A SAQ addresses your conclusion and makes the perfect argument so no holes can be poked into it if that answer choice is selected

Sign In or Register to comment.