Brush up on the difference between LSAT Logical Reasoning necessary and sufficient assumption questions. I've written a whole article about this, but the short answer in telling the difference is that the key is the verb in the question stem.
Bonus advice: It's always been possible for necessary assumption answers to be both necessary and sufficient.
For a necessary assumption question:
To buy a $1 item, it's necessary to have $1, but it also happens to be sufficient to have $1 if you want to buy the item.
Correct sufficient answer choices must always be sufficient of course, if they happen to be necessary as well, that's fine, but it's nothing new. I haven't personally noticed an increase in the occurrence of what you describe, but I haven't been looking for it.
(And I agree 100% about the whole vagueness in "Out of Scope, etc." as a cop-out when describing wrong answer choices. Kaplan does this a lot, and it's one reason their explanations aren't that good.
When I was wrote my LSAT Logical Reasoning explanations, believe me, I could've saved a LOT of time if I resorted to that.)
Bonus advice: It's always been possible for necessary assumption answers to be both necessary and sufficient.
For a necessary assumption question:
To buy a $1 item, it's necessary to have $1, but it also happens to be sufficient to have $1 if you want to buy the item.
Correct sufficient answer choices must always be sufficient of course, if they happen to be necessary as well, that's fine, but it's nothing new. I haven't personally noticed an increase in the occurrence of what you describe, but I haven't been looking for it.
(And I agree 100% about the whole vagueness in "Out of Scope, etc." as a cop-out when describing wrong answer choices. Kaplan does this a lot, and it's one reason their explanations aren't that good.
When I was wrote my LSAT Logical Reasoning explanations, believe me, I could've saved a LOT of time if I resorted to that.)
No comments:
Post a Comment