PT26.S3.Q21 - The companies that are the prime purchasers

ShrilarauneShrilaraune Alum Member
edited December 2018 in Logical Reasoning 169 karma

Hi fam!
So, This is your straightforward Sufficient Assumption Question. If you have a moment you can work out the logic and make your way to a correct answer. Sometimes however, you can see the elements you need to bridge the gap without writing the logic down. In this instance, I read the stimulus and knew I needed an answer tying Success to companies purchasing the software.

Which bring me to my question: Is there a quick way of figuring out which of the elements needs to be sufficient and which necessary? Without writing out the logic chain that is. I think I read somewhere--though the person's explanation was somewhat hard to make out, that because Success is the sufficient condition in the conclusion, it is the sufficient condition in the answer we need. Does that sound right? And if so, can that understanding be used in other similar scenarios?

Thank you!

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-26-section-3-question-21/

Comments

  • MindyKaleMindyKale Alum Member
    350 karma

    I do not write out conditional logic during LR questions. I think that saves time for me. However, I think not writing the whole thing out came due to practice. How I go about identifying quickly is to have a clear idea of the argument structure. What are the premises and what is the conclusion, what information is context etc. This helps enormously for SA questions because I feel like almost all SA questions are predictable. One needs to be careful about contrapositive answer choices.

    Both NA and SA questions have a gap. With SA questions the answer choice closes this gap. For example, in this question, the gap is in between prime purchasers of software and the software being successful, so we have to find an answer choice that bridges it.

    For NA questions, although sometimes the answers are predictable, sometimes it is hard to find the necessary assumption they are going for.
    Necessary assumptions needn't quite close the gap but involve in finding one premise that if it doesn't hold true, wrecks the argument.

    Say for example : Johnny goes to the park when it doesn't rain. Johnny went to the park.
    Sufficient : it did not rain.

    Necessary: Johnny was alive and/or the park wasn't destroyed in an apocalypse (because if Johnny was dead or if the park was non existent, there wouldn't be going to the park and hence it is necessary for the argument).

  • ShrilarauneShrilaraune Alum Member
    169 karma

    @MindyKale said:
    I do not write out conditional logic during LR questions. I think that saves time for me. However, I think not writing the whole thing out came due to practice. How I go about identifying quickly is to have a clear idea of the argument structure. What are the premises and what is the conclusion, what information is context etc. This helps enormously for SA questions because I feel like almost all SA questions are predictable. One needs to be careful about contrapositive answer choices.

    Both NA and SA questions have a gap. With SA questions the answer choice closes this gap. For example, in this question, the gap is in between prime purchasers of software and the software being successful, so we have to find an answer choice that bridges it.

    For NA questions, although sometimes the answers are predictable, sometimes it is hard to find the necessary assumption they are going for.
    Necessary assumptions needn't quite close the gap but involve in finding one premise that if it doesn't hold true, wrecks the argument.

    Say for example : Johnny goes to the park when it doesn't rain. Johnny went to the park.
    Sufficient : it did not rain.

    Necessary: Johnny was alive and/or the park wasn't destroyed in an apocalypse (because if Johnny was dead or if the park was non existent, there wouldn't be going to the park and hence it is necessary for the argument).

    Hi @MindyKale
    Thanks for your response! It's funny, I was just going over NA questions when I decided to check to see if anyone had responded to this (thanks to the admin for linking the question's explanation as well! I'll give that a listen today!). I understand exactly what you're saying! And that's generally the feeling I have about SA questions as well! It's precisely the feeling I had for this question, in fact. I guess to ask my question more clearly:

    I'm at the end of an LR section. The question is an SA one--fabulous. Based on my reading of the stimulus, I know what the conclusion and the support/premises are. I know where the gap is. It's between success and this group buying the software. I guess my problem is this: When I eliminated everything unrelated to these two elements, I was left with A and C. Ignoring the "most" in option A, the only way to distinguish between these two answers is to realize that they're reversals of each other. One has success as the sufficient condition, and one has it as the necessary (which as you suggest, you can realize without writing a thing down). My question is about the next step. Knowing which version of this conditional statement I need for my answer. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I wasn't clear before.

    The weird explanation I found wasn't in great English, so it was hard for me to decipher and I'm still not sure if what I gleaned from it is what was intended. However, that person said that the sufficient condition in the conclusion (if you break the conclusion down into logic) should be the sufficient condition in your answer when you are in this sort of situation. If that's the case, then I can look at answers A and C, see that they both have the elements I need, check the conclusion, see that its sufficient condition is success, and test my remaining answer choices to for the same. All without writing any thing down. It's a seductive option, but I'm not sure it's logically sound, which is why I wanted to check here.

  • brigittebrigitte Free Trial Member
    432 karma

    @Shrilaraune said:

    @MindyKale said:
    I do not write out conditional logic during LR questions. I think that saves time for me. However, I think not writing the whole thing out came due to practice. How I go about identifying quickly is to have a clear idea of the argument structure. What are the premises and what is the conclusion, what information is context etc. This helps enormously for SA questions because I feel like almost all SA questions are predictable. One needs to be careful about contrapositive answer choices.

    Both NA and SA questions have a gap. With SA questions the answer choice closes this gap. For example, in this question, the gap is in between prime purchasers of software and the software being successful, so we have to find an answer choice that bridges it.

    For NA questions, although sometimes the answers are predictable, sometimes it is hard to find the necessary assumption they are going for.
    Necessary assumptions needn't quite close the gap but involve in finding one premise that if it doesn't hold true, wrecks the argument.

    Say for example : Johnny goes to the park when it doesn't rain. Johnny went to the park.
    Sufficient : it did not rain.

    Necessary: Johnny was alive and/or the park wasn't destroyed in an apocalypse (because if Johnny was dead or if the park was non existent, there wouldn't be going to the park and hence it is necessary for the argument).

    Hi @MindyKale
    Thanks for your response! It's funny, I was just going over NA questions when I decided to check to see if anyone had responded to this (thanks to the admin for linking the question's explanation as well! I'll give that a listen today!). I understand exactly what you're saying! And that's generally the feeling I have about SA questions as well! It's precisely the feeling I had for this question, in fact. I guess to ask my question more clearly:

    I'm at the end of an LR section. The question is an SA one--fabulous. Based on my reading of the stimulus, I know what the conclusion and the support/premises are. I know where the gap is. It's between success and this group buying the software. I guess my problem is this: When I eliminated everything unrelated to these two elements, I was left with A and C. Ignoring the "most" in option A, the only way to distinguish between these two answers is to realize that they're reversals of each other. One has success as the sufficient condition, and one has it as the necessary (which as you suggest, you can realize without writing a thing down). My question is about the next step. Knowing which version of this conditional statement I need for my answer. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I wasn't clear before.

    The weird explanation I found wasn't in great English, so it was hard for me to decipher and I'm still not sure if what I gleaned from it is what was intended. However, that person said that the sufficient condition in the conclusion (if you break the conclusion down into logic) should be the sufficient condition in your answer when you are in this sort of situation. If that's the case, then I can look at answers A and C, see that they both have the elements I need, check the conclusion, see that its sufficient condition is success, and test my remaining answer choices to for the same. All without writing any thing down. It's a seductive option, but I'm not sure it's logically sound, which is why I wanted to check here.

    Yes, that is a reliable way to determine the precise connection you need. Think about why it makes sense:

    Premise: A -> B
    Conclusion A -> C

    The missing link is B -> C. Notice that C is a new term on the necessary side of the conclusion - that means the assumption also needs to be put C on the necessary side. Why doesn't it work if we add C -> B? Because in that case, even though All As are B, and All Cs are B, that doesn't guarantee that every A is a C - some As might be the kind of B that isn't a C.

    Premise: G -> D
    Conclusion: X -> D

    The missing link is X -> G. X is the new term and it's on the sufficient side, so the assumption must put X on the sufficient side. Why doesn't it work if we plugged in G -> X. Because in that case, even though All Gs are D and All Gs are X, there would be plenty of Xs that aren't Ds.

  • ShrilarauneShrilaraune Alum Member
    edited December 2018 169 karma

    @anonclsstudent said:

    @Shrilaraune said:

    @MindyKale said:
    I do not write out conditional logic during LR questions. I think that saves time for me. However, I think not writing the whole thing out came due to practice. How I go about identifying quickly is to have a clear idea of the argument structure. What are the premises and what is the conclusion, what information is context etc. This helps enormously for SA questions because I feel like almost all SA questions are predictable. One needs to be careful about contrapositive answer choices.

    Both NA and SA questions have a gap. With SA questions the answer choice closes this gap. For example, in this question, the gap is in between prime purchasers of software and the software being successful, so we have to find an answer choice that bridges it.

    For NA questions, although sometimes the answers are predictable, sometimes it is hard to find the necessary assumption they are going for.
    Necessary assumptions needn't quite close the gap but involve in finding one premise that if it doesn't hold true, wrecks the argument.

    Say for example : Johnny goes to the park when it doesn't rain. Johnny went to the park.
    Sufficient : it did not rain.

    Necessary: Johnny was alive and/or the park wasn't destroyed in an apocalypse (because if Johnny was dead or if the park was non existent, there wouldn't be going to the park and hence it is necessary for the argument).

    Hi @MindyKale
    Thanks for your response! It's funny, I was just going over NA questions when I decided to check to see if anyone had responded to this (thanks to the admin for linking the question's explanation as well! I'll give that a listen today!). I understand exactly what you're saying! And that's generally the feeling I have about SA questions as well! It's precisely the feeling I had for this question, in fact. I guess to ask my question more clearly:

    I'm at the end of an LR section. The question is an SA one--fabulous. Based on my reading of the stimulus, I know what the conclusion and the support/premises are. I know where the gap is. It's between success and this group buying the software. I guess my problem is this: When I eliminated everything unrelated to these two elements, I was left with A and C. Ignoring the "most" in option A, the only way to distinguish between these two answers is to realize that they're reversals of each other. One has success as the sufficient condition, and one has it as the necessary (which as you suggest, you can realize without writing a thing down). My question is about the next step. Knowing which version of this conditional statement I need for my answer. Does that make more sense? Sorry if I wasn't clear before.

    The weird explanation I found wasn't in great English, so it was hard for me to decipher and I'm still not sure if what I gleaned from it is what was intended. However, that person said that the sufficient condition in the conclusion (if you break the conclusion down into logic) should be the sufficient condition in your answer when you are in this sort of situation. If that's the case, then I can look at answers A and C, see that they both have the elements I need, check the conclusion, see that its sufficient condition is success, and test my remaining answer choices to for the same. All without writing any thing down. It's a seductive option, but I'm not sure it's logically sound, which is why I wanted to check here.

    Yes, that is a reliable way to determine the precise connection you need. Think about why it makes sense:

    Premise: A -> B
    Conclusion A -> C

    The missing link is B -> C. Notice that C is a new term on the necessary side of the conclusion - that means the assumption also needs to be put C on the necessary side. Why doesn't it work if we add C -> B? Because in that case, even though All As are B, and All Cs are B, that doesn't guarantee that every A is a C - some As might be the kind of B that isn't a C.

    Premise: G -> D
    Conclusion: X -> D

    The missing link is X -> G. X is the new term and it's on the sufficient side, so the assumption must put X on the sufficient side. Why doesn't it work if we plugged in G -> X. Because in that case, even though All Gs are D and All Gs are X, there would be plenty of Xs that aren't Ds.

    You literally made my night with this. You didn't just tell me that the logic was sound, you showed me so that I could see it myself (which is exactly the sort of thing I need to see to really get something).

    THANK YOU YOU MARVELOUS PERSON YOU.

Sign In or Register to comment.