Top Law Schools

When it comes to necessary assumption questions and negating the answer choices, will it really do so much damage if I don't negate perfectly? To me, going to a sort of extreme helps me catch the right assumption faster.

For example, if I negate "The tools were in the forest" to "The tools were not necessarily in the forest," wouldn't it be more direct and clearer to just say "The tools were not in the forest"?? This would seem to instantly weaken the argument.

The point is the same, so does this shortcut ever backfire miserably??

necessary you shouldnt really have to negate. necessary is mostly bridging the conclusion. easiest way to answer it is to find language used in a premise or in the conclusion once, and it'll more than likely be in the AC. That'll help eliminate 2 or more. Then, the last two should really just be your intuitive knowledge. Bridge the gap that is left out in the stimulus.

edit: what

No, I find negating for necessary assumptions are very helpful because there are just as often those "blocking" types of assumptions that shield the argument from "attacks." Either way, I'd like to hear how people feel about always following the rule of negating precisely.

edit

i mean idk if you dont negate correctly then you arent really finding the logical opposite. obvs you know how to negate from the example you gave. if you really just dont want to for some reason, you can add "it is not the case that..." onto the front of any sentence that you are trying to negate and that too will negate the logic. "it is not the case that the tools are in the forest."

ilikebaseball wrote:necessary you shouldnt really have to negate. necessary is mostly bridging the conclusion. easiest way to answer it is to find language used in a premise or in the conclusion once, and it'll more than likely be in the AC. That'll help eliminate 2 or more. Then, the last two should really just be your intuitive knowledge. Bridge the gap that is left out in the stimulus.

Sufficient though, i always try to negate for sure

Unless I am misunderstanding you, this is not an encouraged practice.

ilikebaseball wrote:necessary you shouldnt really have to negate. necessary is mostly bridging the conclusion. easiest way to answer it is to find language used in a premise or in the conclusion once, and it'll more than likely be in the AC. That'll help eliminate 2 or more. Then, the last two should really just be your intuitive knowledge. Bridge the gap that is left out in the stimulus.

Sufficient though, i always try to negate for sure

I think you have necessary and sufficient assumptions mixed up

BillPackets wrote:i mean idk if you dont negate correctly then you arent really finding the logical opposite. obvs you know how to negate from the example you gave. if you really just dont want to for some reason, you can add "it is not the case that..." onto the front of any sentence that you are trying to negate and that too will negate the logic. "it is not the case that the tools are in the forest."

Thanks for that phrase, I remember seeing it but not using it much. It's helpful.

oh fucking a bout to edit every post i made. been up since 6 gaiz my b runnin on fumes here