Sufficient Assumption AC's: repeat things directly stated Forum

[flash21]

in the stimulus? Is this a common pattern? In review, just saw one that seemed to happen twice in the answer choices. They were things told directly in the stimulus, and did nothing to help fill that gap in the argument.

[bp shinners]

in the stimulus? Is this a common pattern? In review, just saw one that seemed to happen twice in the answer choices. They were things told directly in the stimulus, and did nothing to help fill that gap in the argument.

It's not common - they usually change it up a little bit (mess with logical force, or have a word that's similar to, but not the same as, what's used in the stimulus.

However, if it is the same thing, you can definitely rule it out.

[OVOXO]

in the stimulus? Is this a common pattern? In review, just saw one that seemed to happen twice in the answer choices. They were things told directly in the stimulus, and did nothing to help fill that gap in the argument.

It's not common - they usually change it up a little bit (mess with logical force, or have a word that's similar to, but not the same as, what's used in the stimulus.

However, if it is the same thing, you can definitely rule it out.

I recall a question from Cambridge’s SA pack where the right answer was almost a direct quote from the stimulus itself as it was it in “if…then” format.

[flash21]

hmm okay i think I am not reading closely enough and it may seem as if they are direct statements from the stim

[bp shinners]

in the stimulus? Is this a common pattern? In review, just saw one that seemed to happen twice in the answer choices. They were things told directly in the stimulus, and did nothing to help fill that gap in the argument.

It's not common - they usually change it up a little bit (mess with logical force, or have a word that's similar to, but not the same as, what's used in the stimulus.

However, if it is the same thing, you can definitely rule it out.

I recall a question from Cambridge’s SA pack where the right answer was almost a direct quote from the stimulus itself as it was it in “if…then” format.

Yep, that'll happen in a lot of SA and justify questions - the stimulus gives you a premise and a conclusion, and you find an answer that says, "If [premise], then [conclusion]." That's not the same as the stimulus - it's adding conditionality between the two propositions. If you see an answer that just throws a premise and the conclusion together in an "if...then" format (with the conclusion coming after the "then"), you've got your answer.

[Jeffort]

in the stimulus? Is this a common pattern? In review, just saw one that seemed to happen twice in the answer choices. They were things told directly in the stimulus, and did nothing to help fill that gap in the argument.

It's not common - they usually change it up a little bit (mess with logical force, or have a word that's similar to, but not the same as, what's used in the stimulus.

However, if it is the same thing, you can definitely rule it out.

I recall a question from Cambridge’s SA pack where the right answer was almost a direct quote from the stimulus itself as it was it in “if…then” format.

Yep, that'll happen in a lot of SA and justify questions - the stimulus gives you a premise and a conclusion, and you find an answer that says, "If [premise], then [conclusion]." That's not the same as the stimulus - it's adding conditionality between the two propositions. If you see an answer that just throws a premise and the conclusion together in an "if...then" format (with the conclusion coming after the "then"), you've got your answer.

I think OVOXO might be talking about the SA question from PT 36 (Dec 2001), section 1, #18 or a very similar one.

That one has a premise in the stimulus phrased as "If the data reported in a recent study are correct, [BLAH- important PREMISE]" and the CR simply says "The data reported in the recent study are correct". I've seen this one throw off a lot of people because they mistakenly think the CR is just restating a premise and eliminate it overlooking the LSAC slight of hand throwing the 'If correct' conditionality into the premise and not recognizing the premise is not usable to prove the conclusion unless the 'if correct' sufficient condition is established, which it isn't in the stimulus.

I've seen a fair amount of other SA questions with incorrect trap answers that are just redundant by re-stating an already established premise. It's not a super common trap, but not uncommon either, so something worth looking out for. The gambling laws unenforceable SA question from PT24 S2 #21 is an example with a trap answer that re-states an established premise.

[bp shinners]

I think OVOXO might be talking about the SA question from PT 36 (Dec 2001), section 1, #18 or a very similar one.

That one has a premise in the stimulus phrased as "If the data reported in a recent study are correct, [BLAH- important PREMISE]" and the CR simply says "The data reported in the recent study are correct". I've seen this one throw off a lot of people because they mistakenly think the CR is just restating a premise and eliminate it overlooking the LSAC slight of hand throwing the 'If correct' conditionality into the premise and not recognizing the premise is not usable to prove the conclusion unless the 'if correct' sufficient condition is established, which it isn't in the stimulus.

Ah, good call. That one kills people.