Assumpttion Negation technique consistency? Forum

[spearnreel]

LR assumption questions most always give me trouble. I don't have an extensive amount of PTs taken like some TLS members but since adopting this technique I have come to find that it seems consistent through the four LR sections I have applied it towards. Wanting to know if there are others that frequently use this technique and has it been 100% consistent towards choosing the correct answer?


Or perhaps an even better strategy than the above mentioned for LR assumption questions?

Thanks!

[Kwijiboe]

It is used primarily as a way to double-check the answer that looks the best to you on a question stem that asks for a necessary assumption. I think it's effective because it allows you to see what would happen if that necessary assumption was negated. If it weakens, it is very likely to be the right answer.

However, don't use it on every answer choice-- you'll waste time and confuse yourself.

[am060459]

http://www.cambridgelsat.com/category/lsat/by_Type/8

check this site out OP. if you need practice on certain question types this breaks them down (PT 1- 38). for the necessary assumptions they have 227 questions for $7.50. good luck.

[am060459]

LR assumption questions most always give me trouble. I don't have an extensive amount of PTs taken like some TLS members but since adopting this technique I have come to find that it seems consistent through the four LR sections I have applied it towards. Wanting to know if there are others that frequently use this technique and has it been 100% consistent towards choosing the correct answer?


Or perhaps an even better strategy than the above mentioned for LR assumption questions?

Thanks!

the negation strategy is the best by far. but like the other poster mentioned it should be used for double checking not applying to all answer choices.

[lawduder]

LR assumption questions most always give me trouble. I don't have an extensive amount of PTs taken like some TLS members but since adopting this technique I have come to find that it seems consistent through the four LR sections I have applied it towards. Wanting to know if there are others that frequently use this technique and has it been 100% consistent towards choosing the correct answer?


Or perhaps an even better strategy than the above mentioned for LR assumption questions?

Thanks!

It always works for necessary assumption questions. However, you can't use it on sufficient assumption questions otherwise known as justify the conclusion.

[spearnreel]

the negation strategy is the best by far. but like the other poster mentioned it should be used for double checking not applying to all answer choices.

I really wish I could find a better way of adapting to these questions but the Negation technique has been the only solution promising thus far. Any other suggestions that aren't so "cheating" or that can really make sense to me so I could feel more confidence towards these types of questions?

[tomwatts]

Any other suggestions that aren't so "cheating" or that can really make sense to me so I could feel more confidence towards these types of questions?

I don't really know what you mean by "cheating," but if you're checking whether an argument depends on an assumption or requires assuming something (as many of these question stems ask), the most obvious thing to do is ask, "What if this answer isn't true? How does that affect the argument?" If the argument falls apart when the answer isn't true, then the argument needs the answer, so it's a necessary assumption. That's the essence of the Negation Test.

Language strength and language shifts are the two other major methods for dealing with these. While there are exceptions, an answer that says "could," "might," "some," or another such wishy-washy word is more likely to be right on such a question than an answer that says "always," "never," or another such extreme word. Also, if an argument starts talking about one thing in the premises and ends up talking about a different thing in the conclusion that the argument treats as being the same as the thing in the premises, the argument is assuming that they are in fact the same — this is harder to spot, but once you get it, a whole lot of arguments will open up to you.

I assume that pretty much any book of technique will tell you this.

[blhblahblah]

The negation trick works on sufficient assumption questions, too. Only this time, one would have to negate the conclusion of the argument and check its logical incompatibility with one and only one of the five possible answer choices. The one that is incompatible (that is, the one that cannot be true) is the credited response.

Put differently, necessary assumptions are required in order for the conclusion of an argument to be valid. So, by negating the required assumption, the conclusion is therefore weakened.

conclusion valid -- assumption true

~assumption true -- ~concluson valid

Sufficient assumptions, on the other hand, when taken to be true, enable the conclusion of an argument to be properly drawn. But, if the conclusion of the argument is negated, it follows that the single answer choice sufficient to allow the conclusion to be drawn must be false as well.

assumption true -- conclusion valid

~conclusion valid -- ~assumption true

[spearnreel]

The negation trick works on sufficient assumption questions, too. Only this time, one would have to negate the conclusion of the argument and check its logical incompatibility with one and only one of the five possible answer choices. The one that is incompatible (that is, the one that cannot be true) is the credited response.

Put differently, necessary assumptions are required in order for the conclusion of an argument to be valid. So, by negating the required assumption, the conclusion is therefore weakened.
conclusion valid -- assumption true
~assumption true -- ~concluson valid
Sufficient assumptions, on the other hand, when taken to be true, enable the conclusion of an argument to be properly drawn. But, if the conclusion of the argument is negated, it follows that the single answer choice sufficient to allow the conclusion to be drawn must be false as well.
assumption true -- conclusion valid
~conclusion valid -- ~assumption true

Please let me know if I am understanding this correctly...I can also use the Assumption Negation Technique for justify the conclusion questions. This technique towards justify the conclusion questions by negating the conclusion in the stimulus and whatever answer choice that conflicts with the negated conclusion is the crrect response? If this is so, does this strategy seem consistent across ALL justfy the conclusion questions?

[spearnreel]

The negation trick works on sufficient assumption questions, too. Only this time, one would have to negate the conclusion of the argument and check its logical incompatibility with one and only one of the five possible answer choices. The one that is incompatible (that is, the one that cannot be true) is the credited response.

Put differently, necessary assumptions are required in order for the conclusion of an argument to be valid. So, by negating the required assumption, the conclusion is therefore weakened.

conclusion valid -- assumption true

~assumption true -- ~concluson valid

Sufficient assumptions, on the other hand, when taken to be true, enable the conclusion of an argument to be properly drawn. But, if the conclusion of the argument is negated, it follows that the single answer choice sufficient to allow the conclusion to be drawn must be false as well.

assumption true -- conclusion valid

~conclusion valid -- ~assumption true

One last attempt...
Please let me know if I am understanding this correctly...I can also use the Assumption Negation Technique for justify the conclusion questions. This technique towards justify the conclusion questions by negating the conclusion in the stimulus and whatever answer choice that conflicts with the negated conclusion is the crrect response? If this is so, does this strategy seem consistent across ALL justfy the conclusion questions?

[Camron]

The negation trick works on sufficient assumption questions, too. Only this time, one would have to negate the conclusion of the argument and check its logical incompatibility with one and only one of the five possible answer choices. The one that is incompatible (that is, the one that cannot be true) is the credited response.

Put differently, necessary assumptions are required in order for the conclusion of an argument to be valid. So, by negating the required assumption, the conclusion is therefore weakened.

conclusion valid -- assumption true

~assumption true -- ~concluson valid

Sufficient assumptions, on the other hand, when taken to be true, enable the conclusion of an argument to be properly drawn. But, if the conclusion of the argument is negated, it follows that the single answer choice sufficient to allow the conclusion to be drawn must be false as well.

assumption true -- conclusion valid

~conclusion valid -- ~assumption true

One last attempt...
Please let me know if I am understanding this correctly...I can also use the Assumption Negation Technique for justify the conclusion questions. This technique towards justify the conclusion questions by negating the conclusion in the stimulus and whatever answer choice that conflicts with the negated conclusion is the crrect response? If this is so, does this strategy seem consistent across ALL justfy the conclusion questions?

No, another poster already mentioned this. This will only work on Assumption questions. Justify the conclusions are introduced in the question stem via conditional phrasing (can be rephrased into "if this is assumed, THEN the conclusion can logically follow" whereas true assumption question stems cannot be) and the way to solve these is to have the question stem that adds an additional premise that allows the conclusion to be properly drawn. Not quite as effective as the negatation effect if you don't completely understand the relationship, but this works too (usually involves a new element brought up in one stimulus and not discussed later and a new element in the conclusion that wasn't discussed earlier).

[spearnreel]

No, another poster already mentioned this. This will only work on Assumption questions. Justify the conclusions are introduced in the question stem via conditional phrasing (can be rephrased into "if this is assumed, THEN the conclusion can logically follow" whereas true assumption question stems cannot be) and the way to solve these is to have the question stem that adds an additional premise that allows the conclusion to be properly drawn. Not quite as effective as the negatation effect if you don't completely understand the relationship, but this works too (usually involves a new element brought up in one stimulus and not discussed later and a new element in the conclusion that wasn't discussed earlier).

Right, the mechanical approach towards resolving a justify the conclusion question...new elements within the stimulus (works good for someone like me). Unless I am misunderstanding, BlahBlah was suggesting that the Assumption Negation Technique can be used on justify the conclusion questions however with a different approach?

[Camron]

No, another poster already mentioned this. This will only work on Assumption questions. Justify the conclusions are introduced in the question stem via conditional phrasing (can be rephrased into "if this is assumed, THEN the conclusion can logically follow" whereas true assumption question stems cannot be) and the way to solve these is to have the question stem that adds an additional premise that allows the conclusion to be properly drawn. Not quite as effective as the negatation effect if you don't completely understand the relationship, but this works too (usually involves a new element brought up in one stimulus and not discussed later and a new element in the conclusion that wasn't discussed earlier).

Right, the mechanical approach towards resolving a justify the conclusion question...new elements within the stimulus (works good for someone like me). Unless I am misunderstanding, BlahBlah was suggesting that the Assumption Negation Technique can be used on justify the conclusion questions however with a different approach?

Ah I see, I misunderstood what Blahblah was trying to say.

I am going to give this a try on 5-10 JTC questions and report back if it works or not .