Top Law Schools

mcs268 wrote:So, I know that it is generally taught that in necessary assumption questions, the right answer must account for a new element in the conclusion. However, I'm very confused because I've run into a problem where this does not happen. It is on Prep test 36 December 2001 Section 3 #14.

The new element in the conclusion is clearly "a more traditional education stressing verbal and quantitative" skills but the correct answer does not have that info. I see how the correct answer (C) makes since, but I eliminated it on first glance.

I understand you have to be flexible with the "approaches", but this scares me because what if this happens on the real test and I eliminate the correct answer by mistake?? Is there some way I can tell when the new element DOESN'T need to be in the answer?

I'm thinking in this case "most" is important, so is it certain qualifiers like that which should preclude any eliminations for the "new element"

Thanks! (and I'm sure this will be helpful to most)

mcs268 wrote:I'm getting mixed messages about the Necessary Assumptions. I use Manhattan LSAT forums for explanations usually and for this question they didn't mention this gap/new element thing, but in their other explanations they always say "necessary assumption...look for the gap!"

I use the negation test when I'm down to two choices or so, and I usually get it right. Sometimes though with the negation I'll still get it wrong because I'm still not clear on what's relevant to the actual argument (the test depends on you knowing the argument 100%, essentially).

Ugh these questions are just gonna be the death of me. 75% of my mistakes are on these, and I'm barely improving.

mcs268 wrote:As I tend to overthink everything in this test as in life haha. Thank you both, hopefully I can improve before Oct 6.

Max324 wrote:Reposting this from our October thread:

Max324 wrote:

Oscar85 wrote:Also, assumptions are a big part of the LSAT. I am good at identifying them once I read the answer choices, but I would like to improve my intuition abilities. What did you guys do to spot assumptions + come up with a good answer before reading the answer choices?

Sometimes you can pre-phrase, sometimes you can't. You can often pre-phrase supporter or sufficient assumption questions by "jumping the gap", that is, figuring out where the gap in logic is, and how to bridge the gap.

For example, if I see a premise in a sufficient assumption question that says "Only cool people listen to jazz", and my conclusion is "Therefore, Max is cool", I might pre-phrase, "Max listens to jazz". Why? I know that Max -> Cool, and I know that Jazz -> Cool, so if I assume that Max -> Jazz, the conclusion follows (in other words, Max -> Jazz -> Cool). Note that in this example, it is sufficient, but not necessary for Max to be cool; this would be an inappropriate pre-phrase for a necessary assumption question.

You (usually) can't pre-phrase defender assumption questions.

Posted this a couple times before; once more couldn't hurt:

A correct sufficient assumption answer triggers the conclusion, regardless of whether it links the premises (however, it's exceedingly rare that it won't link). Sufficient assumption answers are not necessary to the conclusion.

Example 1:
I ate bacon. Therefore I became fat.
Sufficient assumption: The high calorie count of bacon causes people who eat it to become fat.
Does it link? Yes. It links the consumption of bacon with becoming fat.
Necessary to the conclusion? No. Suppose that the high calorie count of bacon does not cause people who eat it to become fat. I can still justify the conclusion if, say, bacon contains enzymes that slows down metabolism, resulting in weight gain.

Example 2:
All carnivores eat bacon. Therefore, Jason eats bacon.
Sufficient assumption: All people who are not named Mark eat bacon.
Does it link? No. The carnivore aspect of the argument remains unaddressed.
Necessary to the conclusion? No. Perhaps some people who are not named Mark do not eat bacon. That doesn't necessarily prevent Jason from eating bacon.

A correct necessary supporter assumption links the premises, and is necessary to the conclusion.

Example:
I became fat. Therefore, I must have eaten bacon.
Necessary supporter assumption: Only if one has eaten bacon can one become fat.
Does it link? Yes. It links eating bacon and becoming fat.
Necessary to the conclusion? Yes. Suppose that one can become fat even if they have not eaten bacon. I can no longer justify my conclusion that I must have eaten bacon.

A correct necessary defender assumption defends against a weakener, and is necessary to the conclusion.

Example:
I became fat. The cause of this must have been the bacon I ate.
Necessary defender assumption: Bacon does not contain negative calories that cause people who eat it to lose weight.
Does it link? No.
Necessary to the conclusion? Yes. If bacon does cause people to lose weight, my conclusion is undermined.

Max324 wrote:Reposting this from our October thread:

Max324 wrote:

Oscar85 wrote:Also, assumptions are a big part of the LSAT. I am good at identifying them once I read the answer choices, but I would like to improve my intuition abilities. What did you guys do to spot assumptions + come up with a good answer before reading the answer choices?

Sometimes you can pre-phrase, sometimes you can't. You can often pre-phrase supporter or sufficient assumption questions by "jumping the gap", that is, figuring out where the gap in logic is, and how to bridge the gap.

For example, if I see a premise in a sufficient assumption question that says "Only cool people listen to jazz", and my conclusion is "Therefore, Max is cool", I might pre-phrase, "Max listens to jazz". Why? I know that Max -> Cool, and I know that Jazz -> Cool, so if I assume that Max -> Jazz, the conclusion follows (in other words, Max -> Jazz -> Cool). Note that in this example, it is sufficient, but not necessary for Max to be cool; this would be an inappropriate pre-phrase for a necessary assumption question.

You (usually) can't pre-phrase defender assumption questions.

Posted this a couple times before; once more couldn't hurt:

A correct sufficient assumption answer triggers the conclusion, regardless of whether it links the premises (however, it's exceedingly rare that it won't link). Sufficient assumption answers are not necessary to the conclusion.

Example 1:
I ate bacon. Therefore I became fat.
Sufficient assumption: The high calorie count of bacon causes people who eat it to become fat.
Does it link? Yes. It links the consumption of bacon with becoming fat.
Necessary to the conclusion? No. Suppose that the high calorie count of bacon does not cause people who eat it to become fat. I can still justify the conclusion if, say, bacon contains enzymes that slows down metabolism, resulting in weight gain.

Example 2:
All carnivores eat bacon. Therefore, Jason eats bacon.
Sufficient assumption: All people who are not named Mark eat bacon.
Does it link? No. The carnivore aspect of the argument remains unaddressed.
Necessary to the conclusion? No. Perhaps some people who are not named Mark do not eat bacon. That doesn't necessarily prevent Jason from eating bacon.

A correct necessary supporter assumption links the premises, and is necessary to the conclusion.

Example:
I became fat. Therefore, I must have eaten bacon.
Necessary supporter assumption: Only if one has eaten bacon can one become fat.
Does it link? Yes. It links eating bacon and becoming fat.
Necessary to the conclusion? Yes. Suppose that one can become fat even if they have not eaten bacon. I can no longer justify my conclusion that I must have eaten bacon.

A correct necessary defender assumption defends against a weakener, and is necessary to the conclusion.

Example:
I became fat. The cause of this must have been the bacon I ate.
Necessary defender assumption: Bacon does not contain negative calories that cause people who eat it to lose weight.
Does it link? No.
Necessary to the conclusion? Yes. If bacon does cause people to lose weight, my conclusion is undermined.