Struggling w/Sufficient Assumption and Necessary Assumptions

[msirchia]

I'm having a great deal of trouble being able to efficiently diagram out these assumption questions.

I would say mainly it's not being able to recognize things as quickly as is needed but am looking for any help possible or tips on how to do drills so i can burn it into my brain and really pick these questions apart quickly and accurately.

Help!!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi msirchia,

Thanks for the question! So that we can target our answer directly to you, can you give us an example of the type of question with which you're having difficulty, and walk us through your approach? That will help us spot how you're getting tripped up and make recommendations.

[msirchia]

Hi emily,

I'm having trouble identifying all the parts or premises of the statements, which usually result in me having difficulty mapping it out to find the correct answer.

I have spent some time rereading the Mechanistic approach and was wondering if that works all the time?

I tried it on a few q's and it seemed to work in that instance without mapping it out.

Mainly I think my trouble stems still from identifying conclusions and premises quickly and accurately.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Msirchia,
It seems like you may be talking about 2 different concepts. Sufficient and Necessary questions use the "If --->Then" type of diagrams. Premises and conclusions are different. A premise will tend to supply information that would answer a "Why" type of question and they support the conclusion of an argument, while a conclusion should sum up the argument.
An assumption question may have sufficient & necessary reasoning, and it may also have premises and conclusions. Could you possibly post an example question that is giving you trouble so that we can see how to help you in a more direct manner?
Malila

[Dave Killoran]

Hi msirchia,

Let me add a few questions and comments as well

You mention "being able to efficiently diagram out these assumption questions," but do you mean "diagram" in the sense of identifying premises and conclusions, or in the conditional sense with arrows?

Also, you mention that "I'm having trouble identifying all the parts or premises of the statements." If that is the case, go back now and work on that skill. Most LR questions will be difficult for you until you smoothly and quickly identify premises and conclusions.

Re the Mechanistic approach, it does work all the time, but keep in mind that they actively work to deceive you, and try to blur the lines. If you are still struggling with premises and conclusions, you will miss a bunch of these questions regardless, so you are right to think that's what you need to work on first.

Thanks!

[msirchia]

I'll try to find an example and post it ASAP.

I should have been more clear in my previous post.

Yes identifying premises and conclusions and sub conclusions etc. is a major weak spot for me, however in regards to the SA and NA when it comes to diagramming the solution out....

A then B
B then C
-------------
A then C



I have a hard time figuring out which is A, B and C.

Is there drills I can do to practice this?

[msirchia]

Specific examples...

PT77 S4 Q20

PT64 S1 Q3

[Dave Killoran]

I'll try to find an example and post it ASAP.

I should have been more clear in my previous post.

Yes identifying premises and conclusions and sub conclusions etc. is a major weak spot for me, however in regards to the SA and NA when it comes to diagramming the solution out....

A then B
B then C
-------------
A then C



I have a hard time figuring out which is A, B and C.

Is there drills I can do to practice this?

Well, there are tons of drills on this throughout our LSAT courses and Bibles/workbooks—almost every drill based on conditional reasoning focuses on first identifying the sufficient and necessary conditions

But, more importantly, you shouldn't be trying to diagram every SA/NA problem! Many of them aren't conditional, and if you are trying to diagram, you are looking for something that at times doesn't exist. Instead, it's all about premises and conclusion in both those question types, adn you should diagram only when you see conditional reasoning present and you think diagramming will help you understand the relationships better. this article might help: LSAT Conditional Reasoning: When To Diagram.

Side question: do you find yourself trying to diagram every question that you do?

Thanks!

[msirchia]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for the link, I'll check it out now!

And yes for some reason with SA and NA I feel as if I should be able to diagram the stimulus in that ABC format.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for the link, I'll check it out now!

And yes for some reason with SA and NA I feel as if I should be able to diagram the stimulus in that ABC format.

Sometimes you can diagram it, but not always! If you approach it thinking that it can always be diagrammed, you will miss lots of important pieces, and be focused on the wrong things. Don't try to force a certain system onto the questions, instead, react to what they give you. I liken it to being an air-traffic controller: you only worry about the ideas when they show up in a questions. If it's not on the "screen," so to speak, don't worry about it