Free LSAT resources
Free law school admissions resources

Sufficient assumption

(SA)

Stems that ask us to provide an additional piece of information that, if true, would make the argument in the stimulus completely valid.

Avg. 1.35 per section

“The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?”

6%
16%
38%
26%
14%

Avg. difficulty: 3.2

Correct answer criteria

  • Something that, if added to the premises, would 100% guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Key tactics

  • Identify the conclusion and the premises
  • Think about why the conclusion doesn't have to be true even if the premises are true
  • Pay attention to new concepts brought up in the conclusion but not mentioned in the stimulus. The argument has to make some kind of assumption about those new ideas
  • Be ready for conditional logic in the premises or conclusion. Sufficient assumption questions often involve identifying missing links between different conditional relationships
  • If you're stuck on an answer, ask whether that answer, combined with the premises, 100% proves the conclusion. If it doesn't, it's not correct

Answer choice tips

  • Be careful about picking weak answers. It's difficult for a weakly worded answer to guarantee the truth of the conclusion
  • Be ready to think about contrapositives - sometimes you may know what you're looking for but the correct answer is presented in the contrapositive form

Looking for more?

7Sage offers a full course of video lessons that cover each question type in depth, targeted drills, and performance analytics.

Logical reasoning question types

Alternate explanation Analogy (LR) Argument part Bad authority Causal chain Causal mechanism Causal reasoning Circular reasoning Conditional reasoning Confusing sufficiency and necessity Correlation Diagram? Directionally wrong Eliminating options Equivocation Evaluate Except (LR) Failed alternate explanation False dichotomy Fighting the hypothetical Fill in the blank Flaw or descriptive weakening Illusory inconsistency Inference Internal contradiction Irrelevant corroboration Kick it up Lack of support v. false conclusion Link assumption Main conclusion or main point Math Mental state v. reality Method of reasoning or descriptive Miscellaneous (LR) Misdirected response Most strongly supported Must be false Must be true Necessary assumption Parallel flawed method of reasoning Parallel method of reasoning Part v. whole Phenomenon-hypothesis (LR) Plausibility Point at issue: agree Point at issue: disagree Principle PSA - find or complete the application PSA - find the rule Quantifier Relative v. absolute Resolve reconcile or explain Rule-application Sampling Source attack Strengthen Sufficient assumption Time Unwarranted assumption Value judgment Weaken Weighing factors

Reading comprehension question types

Analogy (RC) Application Art Author’s attitude Author’s perspective Comparative Critique or debate Describe approach Describe organization Describe relationship Except (RC) Humanities Implied Law Logical continuation Main point Meaning in context (of word, phrase, or idea) Miscellaneous (RC) Other’s perspective Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC) Principle or generalization Problem-analysis Purpose in context (of word, phrase, or idea) Purpose of paragraph Purpose of passage Science Single position Spotlight Stated Structure WSE (RC)

Confirm action

Are you sure?