Necessary Assumptions and Sufficient Assumptions -- Examples [LSAT LR]

[@grantwillis9810]

Done a fair amount of online lsat prep and starting to agree that Kevin is king.

[@zachfinemusic]

Kevin is a legend. Someone’s gotta say it. Loving your channel.

[@ianpieller7960]

I have worked through all the 7sage curriculum and I kept seeing videos linked in the comment sections to Kevin's personal youtube and I have found a lot of these videos super useful. Theres something about the way he explains things that just clicks and helps me to better understand the relationships in arguments especially in regards to sufficient assumptions. Definitely going to keep working through these videos and applying them to my drilling.

[@babani8418]

my opinion， this guys works are much better than the lsat lab series. I admit that I'm not a smart one, I can't understand fully by watching other videos about assumptions, while he offers these useful techniques and clear mindset that we desperately need.

[@schojdfjf6495]

Hey you are smart!! Never doubt yourself, the LSAT is intentionally hard so you’re doing a great job!

[@LuluDelights]

This is the video i needed and i take my test today. Wish me luck and thanks for all the videos!! I really appreciate them

[@omegaproductions6667]

Damn, even after reading the entire logical reasoning bible this still provided some help clearing some things up! Thanks!

[@ninakegelman4357]

Best video on this topic i've seen! great way of breaking this down and comparing the two types

[@mauribemtz]

WOW. Thank you! Things in my brain just clicked by the way you explained it! I took a SA drill and got them all right - this has never happened!

[@mamaobama7132]

Hey Kevin, I've only watched a few of your videos but I just want to say how impressed I am with your explanations. Your explanations often give me that "aha" moment i get from watching kahn academy back in highschool haha

[@DanielKim-u9k]

Having watched all your videos uploaded on the youtube, I immediately visited your website and purchased the full GAME lecture. By far, I believe your lecture outperforms all other lectures on youtube and private institution. Thank you so much Kevin for eliciting my confidence towards this test. BTW, if I purshase a private tutoring course on your website, do you consult a private online meeting via special platform, e.g. Zoom, with an appointment?

[@LuminateLSAT]

Thank you! Yes, if you are interested in discussing tutoring, feel free to email me or use the form on my website. We can set up a free consultation first.

[@DanielKim-u9k]

@@LuminateLSAT Thank you Kevin :)

[@diegolam6118]

just saw your jess up moot championship round back from 2010, what a great speaker, calm and composed

[@LuminateLSAT]

Woah, how'd you get a hold of that? Such a long time ago...everybody at the championship tournament was very impressive.

[@diegolam6118]

@@LuminateLSAT Jess up moot recently uploaded championship round recordings from before, kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGiaq4OcaNtsn7c this is the link to your competition, ive been listening to it when i had free time 😄 learned a lot on how the oralist on how they tackle problems and their confidence is commendable

[@butterfliesarecool3876]

This was incredibly helpful! Thank you

[@702degrees]

kevin is so goated

[@danielshin17]

Hello Kevin! This is my second time watching your videos and you are an amazing teacher :) Will definitely continue. Just one quick question on question 2 of the second example: "The benefits from her immediate resignation will not be outweighed by the detrimental effects". Why is this necessary for the conclusion that she should resign to be true? If we negate this and say that detriments will outweigh the benefits, I agree it would hurt the argument but I don't think it would it make it impossible. There are actions that are still done in spite of detriments outweighing the benefits-- perhaps there's a policy that calls for immediate resignation regardless of whether the detriments outweigh the benefits. Wouldn't there need to be an additional premise stating that having relatively more benefits than detriments is a factor that calls for immediate resignation for this to be an NA? Thanks again for your help and keep up the amazing work.

[@LuminateLSAT]

You raise an interesting point -- my interpretation of the argument is that the author uses cost/benefit reasoning to support the recommendation. Why else would the author bring up the lack of public trust in her decision other than the idea that there's something bad about having the public lack trust in a judge's decision, and that this should count as a reason for resignation? Thus, by pointing out that the harms outweigh the benefits, we have shown that the premise doesn't guarantee that the judge should resign. You're right that the negation would not make "should resign" impossible. What if, as you point out, there's a policy that any judge who loses the trust of the public should immediately resign. But the fact that the author would need to respond by bringing up that rule or by citing to some other principle in my view shows that the negation weakens. The author would need to defend her argument by citing to things outside the premise, which shows that the premise she gave isn't enough to prove the conclusion. My take on this does require me to believe the author's mode of reasoning was cost/benefit. In theory, the author could have been relying only on a moral principle, without any thoughts about costs or benefits. I'm not sure that's a reasonable interpretation though. I suppose it depends on what we take to be the "default" kind of reasoning given the premise. "The job I was just offered pays more than my current job. Thus, I should accept the new job." Is this necessary: "The benefits of taking the new job are not outweighed by the costs." It is if we think the author was using cost/benefit reasoning. In theory the author could have been operating under the theory that money is the only that that matters, not as part of a cost/benefit calculus, but as a moral principle in deciding one's job. I don't think that's a reasonable default, though.

[@danielshin17]

@@LuminateLSAT Thanks for the quick response! That really helped clarify my point of confusion :)

[@r.p.8906]

super helpful!!

[@pragaaskaur8197]

Thank you!

[@gedeon813]

Hi Kevin, wouldn't no. 4 in the second example also be NA since negating it would dismiss one of the premises just like in no. 5?

[@LuminateLSAT]

Not exactly -- if 4. had started with "some" (like 5), then it would be necessary. If 4 had started with some, then the negation would be "No people credibly accused of bribes in connection with their jobs should resign." That negation would make one of the premises completely unsupportive of the conclusion. However, 4 actually starts with "anyone". So the negation of 4 = "Some people who are credibly accuesd of bribes should NOT resign." That does not hurt the argument, because the argument was saying that people who are credibly accused of bribes AND have that accusation damage their public legitimacy should resign. The author is saying that both of those premises together lead to the conclusion. Consider this argument: "Since I'm working overtime and I didn't get a good night's sleep, I will make more mistakes than normal." Is this necessary to the argument: "Anyone who works overtime will make more mistakes than normal." It's not -- the author wasn't saying that all people who work overtime make more mistakes than normal. They were saying all people who work overtime AND didn't get a good night's sleep will make more mistakes than normal. The author's reasoning can acknowledge that people who just worked over time might not make more mistakes than normal -- as long as they got a good night's sleep.

[@IsabellaGiampaglia]

@@LuminateLSAT thank you so much. This trips me up a bit because a common rule I got from Blueprint was that generally, necessary assumptions ARE more broad than sufficient. So when does this rule apply and when does it not?

[@lraoux]

I’m confused about the 2nd example. What is the answer? When I read 4 I thought “Bingo” (and I still think that’s the correct answer), but I suppose that there could be an answer choice, hypothetically, that states “Judges who have negative public perceptions due to taking bribes serve no function in today’s society, and are applauded for resigning when doing so,” then that would be the correct answer (?).

[@r.p.8906]

I did not think that 2 is necessary because the only premise supporting the MC is "never be viewed legitimate by the public". I missed this one...🙃