Top Law Schools

In the stim if you have

A --> B as premise
C --> B as the conclusion

Why is the sufficient assumption C --> A and not the other way around ie) A --> C? Isn't the direction of the logic supposed to match premise ---> conclusion?
C-->A goes from conclusion to premise. Also, in cases where the stimulus has identical logic to that above, is it always the case that you would need to find an answer choice that links C ---> A (or ~A --> ~C as in the contrapositive)?

Question that corresponds to the above logic is: PT 38 S1 Q1

.

Perfect, thanks

Good rule of thumb for this is that the new term that shows up in the conclusion must show up in the answer choice on the same side of the arrow as it does in the conclusion (unless it's the contrapositive of what you're looking for, in which case it will show up on the opposite side of the arrow and be negated).

Check out the side note in this post I did. It directly addresses your question using an example:

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/lo ... ption.html

Thanks so much for this. These questions were killing me before I read this.