Mistaking suf for nec VS mistaking nec for suf

[nmmizokami]

I'm a bit confused about the technical differences between the errors of (1) mistaking sufficiency or necessity and (2) mistaking necessity for sufficiency. I realize the instances in which the errors arise may be different (i.e. mistaken negation and mistaken reversal, respectively), but aren't the 2 mistakes essentially the same error described in two different descriptions? If you were to switch the necessary and sufficient conditions of a conditional statement (mistaken reversal) would you not be able to describe the error using either one of those descriptions?

[ohthatpatrick]

You are correct. I think of them as the same thing, not two different things.

I've never seen an LSAT question try to test a distinction between the two forms (because I don't think there is one).

That said, one of them is usually a more natural fit just because the answer attempts to go from Prem to Conc, the vast majority of the time.

i.e., if it's saying "treats ______ as _____"
or "mistakes ______ for _____ "
or "confuses ______ for _____ "

it's (almost?) always the case that the first blank refers to the premise and the second to the conclusion.

If we had this argument,
A --> B
B.
Therefore, A

it could say "takes a condition that is sufficient for B and treats it as though it's necessary".
or it could say "treats something necessary for A as though it's sufficient"