NA Questions

Comments

• 3 Likes

  LSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2017 edited October 2017 13286 karma

  What I did was get a note book.

  I wrote out:

  1.) the conclusion
  2.) the support
  3.) The negation of every Ac
  4.) a short summary of how the negation destroys the argument.

  I did this for a TON of NA questions and it got me use to looking for the right answer.

  Another thing that helps me is remembering that the AC might not really be what we “expect” the right answer might play on some small little thing that we didn’t even think about. And I always remember that some NA questions are requiring us to “bridge” things in the stimulus because something is missing.
• 1 Like

  FirstOne Core Member

  October 2017 172 karma

  @LSATChaos 1) look at the ACs going from Wrong-to-Right in the POE process, 2) apply the Negation Test on the answer you think is the correct choice. A side note, it is vitally important to identify the Conclusion, and a subtle observation that I have seemed to note that happens in the correct ACs is that they tend to go from grabbing a piece of the Conclusion and a Premise (in some way). Hope this helps! You've got to have fun with it, say to yourself, I missed that because I misread the Q-stem or I didn't correctly ID the conclusion. This won't happen again, talk to yourself, try to enjoy learning it and it may help you get the break through you need.
• 1 Like

  NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2017 edited October 2017 5320 karma

  ditto to @LSATcantwin

  The stimulus in these questions presents a vulnerable argument. What makes them difficult is to what degree that vulnerability is hidden. But there is always a gap. You can train yourself to see this. I'm becoming very confident in these questions now and I think it is a result of getting comfortable with just how weak and obvious the correct answer choices can be. I don't psych myself out anymore.

  I definitely recommend what lsatcantwin suggested and add that you should spend as much time as you need with a question in drilling and review before watching JYs explanation or seeing the correct answer. Even if you need to come back to it the next day. It can be frustrating but it will help you in the long run.

  "I will score a 180"

  A) Your avg PT score is 180 leading into the exam
  B ) You aren't the unluckiest test taker in the history of the lsat
  C) JY says you have a chance at scoring 180
  D) You don't sleep through the scheduled time of the test on test day
  E) You are the smartest person on 7Sage
• 1 Like

  NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2017 5320 karma

  also, there is a webinar on NA which you may find helpful. https://7sage.com/webinar/necessary-assumptions/
• Tavorak_ Free Trial Member

  October 2017 115 karma

  I thought I understood these but recently I've been confusing myself.
  Does the correct answer ever reinforce a premise? Like if we negated it, it would ruin the premise (and thus, the argument), but we have to treat the premises as gospel so that doesn't matter, right?
  Also, does it typically break down as sufficient assumptions bridge the gap and necessary assumptions shield the argument? I think I remember NAs that bridge the gap, but never SAs that shield it.
• 1 Like

  LSATcantwin Alum Member Sage ⭐

  October 2017 edited October 2017 13286 karma

  @OldSpeedoGuy said:
  I thought I understood these but recently I've been confusing myself.
  Does the correct answer ever reinforce a premise? Like if we negated it, it would ruin the premise (and thus, the argument), but we have to treat the premises as gospel so that doesn't matter, right?
  Also, does it typically break down as sufficient assumptions bridge the gap and necessary assumptions shield the argument? I think I remember NAs that bridge the gap, but never SAs that shield it.

  The correct answer, when negated, will destroy the conclusion of the argument. It will not touch the premises.

  For example:

  • My dog has really good hearing. Any time I open a new bag of food he comes running. The bag is really loud when I open it. I conclude that the sound of the bag makes my dog come running.

  Necessary assumption:

  • It IS NOT the smell of the food that attracts my dog.

  Negation

  • It IS the smell of the food that attracts my dog.

  If it's the smell of the food that attracts my dog, then my conclusion that it's the sound of the bag is bunk.

  See how my conclusion is demolished by the negation of the necessary assumption? The necessary assumption is essentially an unstated premise to my argument. If I included it, then my argument would be even stronger.

  • My dog has really good hearing. Any time I open a new bag of food he comes running. The bag is really loud when I open it. IT IS NOT THE SMELL OF THE FOOD THAT ATTRACTS MY DOG. I conclude that the sound of the bag makes my dog come running.

  My argument is stronger when the NA is added to it.

  When it comes to the distinction between SA and NA questions it's important to remember that for a SA question it will make my conclusion VALID. As soon as we add the SA to the argument our argument is perfect.

  Example:

  • Every time my cat gets wet it runs away. The sprinkler is on outside right now. Therefore I conclude my cat will run away.

  Sufficient assumption;

  • My cat will get hit by the sprinkler and get wet.

  That completes my argument to be 100% valid.

  • Every time my cat gets wet it runs away. The sprinkler is on outside right now. My cat will get hit by the sprinkler and get wet. Therefore my cat will run away.

  With a NA question we will not instantly be in the category of valid. In the example above I still don't have a fully valid argument, even when I add my NA to it.

  Does this help clear the air a bit?

  In short;

  A sufficient assumption, when added to the argument, will make the conclusion valid.

  A necessary assumption, when added to the argument, will strengthen the argument.

  A necessary assumption, when negated, will DESTROY the arguments conclusion.

  EDIT: Also to use your terms more specifically.

  A NA and SA both can bridge a gap in an argument.

  When a NA shields an argument, it's just taking away a weakness that the argument has. A sufficient assumption by it's very nature makes an argument waterproof and creates the ultimate shield by making the argument valid.