Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.1K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 2 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 1 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 9 Forum Rules
- 573 Technical Problems
- 280 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Quick Question Regarding the Necessary-Sufficient Flaw
Edmond.Dantes
Alum Member
Hello! I have a very basic question. This is a bit long, but I appreciate anyone who would provide some thoughts on this.
Q: If an argument commits the necessary, but not sufficient flaw, does it also commit the sufficient, but not necessary flaw?
This question came about after I read two examples in the Trainer:
Example 1: "Everyone who boards the plane has to show his or her ticket to the attendant. Since Tom has shown his ticket, he will be allowed to board the plane."
B -> S
S
------
B
The trainer understood this to be a necessary, but not sufficient flaw (S is necessary, but not sufficient for
. But couldn't you also say that B is sufficient, but not necessary for S?
Example 2: "Every time you drink, you end up feeling sick the next day. You say you are sick today. You must have gone drinking yesterday."
D -> S
S
---
D
The training understood this to be a sufficient, but not necessary flaw (D is sufficient, but not necessary for S). But similarly, couldn't you say that S is necessary, but not sufficient for D?
When I first read this, I was very confused by the fact that two identical argument structures have two "different flaws," which is why I wonder if the two flaws are the same.
I then read this for a bit and now think that the two flaws are different. The two arguments seem to have different emphasis. What makes the first example a "necessary, but not sufficient" is the keywords "he will be allowed to board," which is different from "he must board." I think, if you were to make this change, the first example would be more intuitively a sufficient, but not necessary flaw.
"Everyone who boards the plane has to show his or her ticket to the attendant. Since Tom has shown his ticket, he must have boarded the plane."
What do you think? Since this is so foundational, I appreciate any comments about this. Thanks!
Q: If an argument commits the necessary, but not sufficient flaw, does it also commit the sufficient, but not necessary flaw?
This question came about after I read two examples in the Trainer:
Example 1: "Everyone who boards the plane has to show his or her ticket to the attendant. Since Tom has shown his ticket, he will be allowed to board the plane."
B -> S
S
------
B
The trainer understood this to be a necessary, but not sufficient flaw (S is necessary, but not sufficient for
. But couldn't you also say that B is sufficient, but not necessary for S? Example 2: "Every time you drink, you end up feeling sick the next day. You say you are sick today. You must have gone drinking yesterday."
D -> S
S
---
D
The training understood this to be a sufficient, but not necessary flaw (D is sufficient, but not necessary for S). But similarly, couldn't you say that S is necessary, but not sufficient for D?
When I first read this, I was very confused by the fact that two identical argument structures have two "different flaws," which is why I wonder if the two flaws are the same.
I then read this for a bit and now think that the two flaws are different. The two arguments seem to have different emphasis. What makes the first example a "necessary, but not sufficient" is the keywords "he will be allowed to board," which is different from "he must board." I think, if you were to make this change, the first example would be more intuitively a sufficient, but not necessary flaw.
"Everyone who boards the plane has to show his or her ticket to the attendant. Since Tom has shown his ticket, he must have boarded the plane."
What do you think? Since this is so foundational, I appreciate any comments about this. Thanks!
Comments
A-->B
B
_____
A
is the same as
/B-->/A
B
-----------------
A
A-->B
/A
-------------
/B
is the same as
/B-->/A
/A
--------------
/B
But you’re right, there is a distinction in English. Remember, everything is relational. Here’s the relevant lesson: https://7sage.com/lesson/relationships-are-relational/
A) Confuse a necessary condition for a sufficient condition
On the LSAT they will be a bit more specific, so even if one answer says "mistakes a necessary condition for a sufficient condition" and the other will be "mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary" they will specify further, so as long as you know which is which in the original argument you should be able to pick the correct answer
So, for the plane one they could say:
A. mistakes the fact that having a boarding pass is a necessary condition to boarding to it being sufficient (correct).
B. mistakes the fact that having a boarding pass is a sufficient condition to it being necessary (incorrect - having a boarding pass is necessary, not sufficient).
You are thinking critically of these issues and understanding the concepts, so you're going to do great.