Kevin, I'm your biggest fan. This video should be seen by ALL who are trying to grasp Sufficient Assumption questions. Thanks for always making it make sense! PS - you epitomize "manifesting generosity"
I’m here to reiterate everything everyone has said! I came looking for motivation to keep trying hard SA questions and now I feel equipped to tackle them again tomorrow! ❤
Your explanations, visualisations, and just sheer understanding of this exam put you at the upper echelon of instructors by far. I also appreciate how you put this for free and are not gimicky trying to sell your course. Ironically enough, that actually would make me want to join a course. I have been binging all of your video and recommending to my friends. Thank you!
I've been struggling with sufficient assumption for so long and I keep hearing about how they're supposedly LSAT "freebies" and now I can see why, this has been SO helpful, and identifying the patterns is a tool that can aid anyone in increasing their score with practice. Thank you!
I have been struggling with SA for so long… this video has been so extremely helpful in forming an understanding of how to strategize for this question type. Many thanks, Kevin!
WOW thank you so much. You don't know how much this has helped me. I've been struggling to understand sufficient/necessary assumptions and this video saved me. I'm disappointed that Powerscore and 7Sage did not explain it as thoroughly as you did. And this is for free :) Thank you sooo much!!
I got chills. NA and SA questions were the ones I constantly got wrong and struggled so hard to understand. The way you broke down the concepts and how to diagram literally made my jaw drop. Thank you so much
Omg what a life saver. I watched so many videos but this was so clear and straight forward. Thank you for pointing out that the necessary condition is always on the right so therefore it can't be moved to the left. It didn't click with me until now.
Thank you for your video. I’m taking the LSAT on Saturday and did not understand how to do sufficient assumption questions primarily because I was confused about the order. Thanks to your video I have been able to get sufficient assumption questions correct that contain formal logic. I’m now a bit more confident :)
Watching this right before taking my exam and I feel like I FINALLY understand this concept after literally 4 months of studying. So glad I found your channel, and if I retake my test in a few months i'll be watching all of your videos. Thank you Kevin!
Thank you so, so much, Kevin; this video is excellent!! I have been struggling with the conditional logic questions for awhile, and your explanation has been a game changer! So many other SA videos are too basic, but this one really gets at the heart of the issue. Thank you!
Thanks so much Kevin for the informative video. You really have helped me a lot on solidifying conditional logic concepts. I'm a little still stuck on the last example regarding spelling bee and getting admitted to college though. I'm quite not sure on how that is not NA but SA only. A couple questions here: 1) Although I agree "any college and to any graduate school" is a very broad term, if I were to ask myself "do I need this statement to be true in order for conclusion to be true", I would say yes. Also, if I try to negate A based on your negation strategy and read as "Even if you perform above average on the test, you will not increase your chances at getting admitted to any college" (paraphrased), would this not invalidate the conclusion? 2) Besides the main/obvious red flags an answer choice is too broad for a necessary assumption such as All, Any, None etc, what are some indicators that you recommend to keep an eye on? Thank you so much as always!
I think you might be interpreting the negation incorrectly. And it likely boils down to the difference between the phrase "not any" and "not all". The word "any" in the phrase "any college or any graduate school" is essentially the same as "all". So, in the non-negated form, the answer is saying that if you perform above average, you will increase your chances at getting admitted to all schools. What's the negation of this? Even if you perform above average, you will *not* increase your chances at getting admitted to all schools. What does "not increase chances at getting admitted to all schools" mean? It means that whereas before, you would have increased your chances at 100% of schools, now, it's not 100%. There's at least one school where you won't increase your chance at getting admitted. And that negation doesn't hurt the logic of the argument, because the conclusion was only concerned about getting into a "selective college", which is just one kind of school. Even if performing above average at the test would not increase the chances at *all* schools, the argument only needs above-average to increase chances at the particular kind of school that the conclusion was about. The reason you think the negation hurts the argument is probably that you are interpreting it as "even if you perform above average, there are *no* schools where you will increase your chances". That would hurt the argument, but it's more extreme than the actual negation. The reason you might be interpreting it that way is that, quite naturally, you are negating the statement "... will increase chances at getting to any college" by adding the word "not" at the beginning -- "...will NOT increase chances at getting into any college". But you have to be careful about the word "any" when you are negating. When we say "not any", that means NONE. But the original statement meant "all" -- so the proper negation should have the same meaning as "not all", which means "some are not". If you negate the statement as "not any", that means "*all* are not", which is different from "not all." For example: Your passport will get you into any country. What's the negation of that statement? (1) Your passport will not get you into any country. (2) Your passport will not get you into all countries. (2) is the correct negation. Why? Because the initial statement is saying the passport will get you into every single country. The negation of that idea is that it won't get you into every single country -- there's at least one country where it won't get you in. (1) means the same as "Your passport will get you into NO countries at all." But that's too extreme -- you don't have to go that far in order to contradict the initial statement. The bare minimum you need to show in order to contradict the initial statement is that there's at least one country the passport won't get you into. That's what (2) is saying. Does this make sense?
could you please clarify the definitions of sufficient and necessary conditions. When I read up on it , is says necessary conditions normally start with "if", " only" "then". However in your examples you said that it was the sufficient condition.
You might have been confusing "if" with the phrase "only if". The word "If" introduces a sufficient condition. The phrase "only if" introduces a necessary condition. If it's Monday, I will go to work. = Monday is sufficient for me to go to work. But I can also go to work on other days. I will go to work only if it's Monday = Monday is necessary for me to go to work. If it's not Monday, I will not go to work. In addition, even if it's Monday, that by itself is not enough to guarantee that I will go to work.
Kevin, don't take this the wrong way, but in this video, it looks like you're holding something in your mouth. You got a dip in? If you can talk for 30 minutes with a dip in, you're a champion
![Necessary Assumptions and Sufficient Assumptions -- Examples [LSAT LR]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BwSTQJOGdx8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Necessary Assumptions and Sufficient Assumptions -- Examples [LSAT LR]](/img/tr.png)
![Never Pick This Flaw Answer - Learn How 180-Scorers Know This Answer Is ALWAYS WRONG [LSAT LR]](/img/n.gif)
I understand this way better than I ever did by self studying.
I rewatch this video once a week to help with sufficient assumption and conditional logic questions and it is SO helpful!!
Kevin, I'm your biggest fan. This video should be seen by ALL who are trying to grasp Sufficient Assumption questions. Thanks for always making it make sense! PS - you epitomize "manifesting generosity"
I’m here to reiterate everything everyone has said! I came looking for motivation to keep trying hard SA questions and now I feel equipped to tackle them again tomorrow! ❤
Your explanations, visualisations, and just sheer understanding of this exam put you at the upper echelon of instructors by far. I also appreciate how you put this for free and are not gimicky trying to sell your course. Ironically enough, that actually would make me want to join a course. I have been binging all of your video and recommending to my friends. Thank you!
One of the very best (if not "the best") Logical Reasoning instructors on the internet !!!!!!
I've been struggling with sufficient assumption for so long and I keep hearing about how they're supposedly LSAT "freebies" and now I can see why, this has been SO helpful, and identifying the patterns is a tool that can aid anyone in increasing their score with practice. Thank you!
I hate SA
Great stuff, Kevin.
I have been struggling with SA for so long… this video has been so extremely helpful in forming an understanding of how to strategize for this question type. Many thanks, Kevin!
Thank you so much. I struggled so much with these types of questions. Your explanation is flawless imo
this video sparked a lightbulb moment. I couldn't crystalize the placement of the "necessary," condition in the conclusion. Thank you
WOW thank you so much. You don't know how much this has helped me. I've been struggling to understand sufficient/necessary assumptions and this video saved me. I'm disappointed that Powerscore and 7Sage did not explain it as thoroughly as you did. And this is for free :) Thank you sooo much!!
I got chills. NA and SA questions were the ones I constantly got wrong and struggled so hard to understand. The way you broke down the concepts and how to diagram literally made my jaw drop. Thank you so much
Omg what a life saver. I watched so many videos but this was so clear and straight forward. Thank you for pointing out that the necessary condition is always on the right so therefore it can't be moved to the left. It didn't click with me until now.
Thank you for your video. I’m taking the LSAT on Saturday and did not understand how to do sufficient assumption questions primarily because I was confused about the order. Thanks to your video I have been able to get sufficient assumption questions correct that contain formal logic. I’m now a bit more confident :)
Omg! I was stuck on lsat 26.3.21 and this has helped me understand why I was wrong in my answer choice. Thank you so much for this video
This was extremely helpful!!!!
i now undeerstand sufficients after millions of failed attempts. thank you kevin
Watching this right before taking my exam and I feel like I FINALLY understand this concept after literally 4 months of studying. So glad I found your channel, and if I retake my test in a few months i'll be watching all of your videos. Thank you Kevin!
lmao this is me with my exam next week
Thank you so, so much, Kevin; this video is excellent!! I have been struggling with the conditional logic questions for awhile, and your explanation has been a game changer! So many other SA videos are too basic, but this one really gets at the heart of the issue. Thank you!
Oh he absolutely cooked at 11:27
You are the best ❤ since I started studying Lsat, keep struggling with NA, SA. Finally I get those logical concept with the right explanation..
thank you ! This video was very helpful and informative.
fantastic! This BEAUTIFUL test!!🙃
Thanks a lot Sir
Thanks so much Kevin for the informative video. You really have helped me a lot on solidifying conditional logic concepts. I'm a little still stuck on the last example regarding spelling bee and getting admitted to college though. I'm quite not sure on how that is not NA but SA only. A couple questions here:
1) Although I agree "any college and to any graduate school" is a very broad term, if I were to ask myself "do I need this statement to be true in order for conclusion to be true", I would say yes. Also, if I try to negate A based on your negation strategy and read as "Even if you perform above average on the test, you will not increase your chances at getting admitted to any college" (paraphrased), would this not invalidate the conclusion?
2) Besides the main/obvious red flags an answer choice is too broad for a necessary assumption such as All, Any, None etc, what are some indicators that you recommend to keep an eye on?
Thank you so much as always!
I think you might be interpreting the negation incorrectly. And it likely boils down to the difference between the phrase "not any" and "not all".
The word "any" in the phrase "any college or any graduate school" is essentially the same as "all". So, in the non-negated form, the answer is saying that if you perform above average, you will increase your chances at getting admitted to all schools.
What's the negation of this? Even if you perform above average, you will *not* increase your chances at getting admitted to all schools.
What does "not increase chances at getting admitted to all schools" mean? It means that whereas before, you would have increased your chances at 100% of schools, now, it's not 100%. There's at least one school where you won't increase your chance at getting admitted.
And that negation doesn't hurt the logic of the argument, because the conclusion was only concerned about getting into a "selective college", which is just one kind of school. Even if performing above average at the test would not increase the chances at *all* schools, the argument only needs above-average to increase chances at the particular kind of school that the conclusion was about.
The reason you think the negation hurts the argument is probably that you are interpreting it as "even if you perform above average, there are *no* schools where you will increase your chances". That would hurt the argument, but it's more extreme than the actual negation. The reason you might be interpreting it that way is that, quite naturally, you are negating the statement "... will increase chances at getting to any college" by adding the word "not" at the beginning -- "...will NOT increase chances at getting into any college". But you have to be careful about the word "any" when you are negating. When we say "not any", that means NONE. But the original statement meant "all" -- so the proper negation should have the same meaning as "not all", which means "some are not". If you negate the statement as "not any", that means "*all* are not", which is different from "not all."
For example:
Your passport will get you into any country.
What's the negation of that statement?
(1) Your passport will not get you into any country.
(2) Your passport will not get you into all countries.
(2) is the correct negation. Why? Because the initial statement is saying the passport will get you into every single country. The negation of that idea is that it won't get you into every single country -- there's at least one country where it won't get you in. (1) means the same as "Your passport will get you into NO countries at all." But that's too extreme -- you don't have to go that far in order to contradict the initial statement. The bare minimum you need to show in order to contradict the initial statement is that there's at least one country the passport won't get you into. That's what (2) is saying.
Does this make sense?
Thank you so much! This helped me immensely! @@LuminateLSAT
Very helpful, thanks a lot!
Thank you!!
super helpful!
tysm! this helped me a lot
could you please clarify the definitions of sufficient and necessary conditions. When I read up on it , is says necessary conditions normally start with "if", " only" "then". However in your examples you said that it was the sufficient condition.
You might have been confusing "if" with the phrase "only if". The word "If" introduces a sufficient condition. The phrase "only if" introduces a necessary condition.
If it's Monday, I will go to work. = Monday is sufficient for me to go to work. But I can also go to work on other days.
I will go to work only if it's Monday = Monday is necessary for me to go to work. If it's not Monday, I will not go to work. In addition, even if it's Monday, that by itself is not enough to guarantee that I will go to work.
thank you very much@@LuminateLSAT
Absolutely hate assumption questions
Kevin, don't take this the wrong way, but in this video, it looks like you're holding something in your mouth. You got a dip in? If you can talk for 30 minutes with a dip in, you're a champion
hahaha!! false assumption! You are in the right course...