I excel at Necessary questions, but fail miserably at Sufficient assumptions. Are there any techniques that'll help me with these? I mostly have a problem on the ones that don't require formal logic.
Do you feel that it can be helpful to sometimes view strengthen questions as weakening the opposite of the conclusion, and vice-versa? And when I say opposite, I mean the logical opposite.
... test 31 section 3 - Necessary assumption - Asteroids and extinction of dinosaurs ... not get to make the assumption that the cooling effect on ... are supposed to make the assumption that more asteroid impacts could ...
... how D is a necessary assumption. I also don't really ... the same? Sure, this would strengthen the argument (I think), but ... have to make the dubious assumption that the earnings of the ...
... , Craig thinks being lost is sufficient for stopping while R thinks ... referred to is R's assumption that they are Not lost ... evidence/ reason why R's assumption is wrong. I don't ...
... , that isn't an OK assumption. This answer choice leaves open ... B: I think this may strengthen the argument since it sort ... million times? This scenario might strengthen the argument since the total ...
... for: We need to strengthen the argument. The argument ... NOT meteors. That's the assumption.
Answer A: ... I think this does actually strengthen the conclusion because it provides ... This doesn't address the assumption that age matters since it ...
Something I came across recently and found slightly confusing was the difference between a claim and an assumption. Can someone help me understand the difference between these two categorizations specifically as it relates to logical reasoning?