Confusing sufficiency and necessity
(SuffvNec)
Confusing sufficiency and necessity
(SuffvNec)
The "oldest mistake in the book." Arguments that confuse a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. For example, the claim A → B is confused for B → A or /A → /B.
Avg. 0.6 per section
21%
36%
30%
Avg. difficulty: 3.2
Key tactics
- We call this flaw the "oldest mistake in the book" because you are guaranteed see this multiple times in every PrepTest.
Answer choice tips
- Example answer choices that point to this flaw:
- assumes without warrant that just because satisfying a given condition is enough to ensure an announcement’s importance, satisfying that condition is necessary for its importance.
- (In response to a stimulus that presents a premise saying "A -> B" but concludes "B -> A"): ignores the possibility that B may sometimes happen while A does not happen.
- mistakenly interprets P to be claiming that a factor assures, rather than is necessary for, a legislator’s effectiveness.
Argument part
Evaluate
Fill in the blank
Flaw or descriptive weakening
Inference
Main conclusion or main point
Method of reasoning or descriptive
Most strongly supported
Must be false
Must be true
Necessary assumption
Parallel flawed method of reasoning
Parallel method of reasoning
Point at issue: agree
Point at issue: disagree
Principle
PSA - find or complete the application
PSA - find the rule
Resolve reconcile or explain
Strengthen
Sufficient assumption
Weaken
Analogy (RC)
Application
Author’s attitude
Author’s perspective
Describe approach
Describe organization
Describe relationship
Implied
Logical continuation
Main point
Meaning in context (of word, phrase, or idea)
Other’s perspective
Principle or generalization
Purpose in context (of word, phrase, or idea)
Purpose of paragraph
Purpose of passage
Stated
Structure
WSE (RC)