Necessary Assumption Questions

[camerojg]

LSAT Geeks:

I'm currently drilling necessary assumption questions and find myself consistently running into the same problems, in turn wasting time and having to circle questions due to a lack of confidence in my answers. Before practicing any more questions I feel I should address these issues.

For one, I'm having trouble prephrasing. It's hard to anticipate a necessary assumption answer, so instead I've just been trying to find gaps (assumes that, fails to consider, etc.) between the premises and conclusion rather than prephrasing a necessary assumption. It's the same strategy I use for strengthen/weaken/suff. assumption/flaw/principle support questions. Is this the advisable approach or should I be handling it a different way?

My second and more concerning issue relates to wrong answer choices. Too often I find myself saying "you don't have to assume that!" rather than finding precise, substantive reasons for denying answers. Often times I'll prove an answer wrong by demonstrating that the negated version doesn't destroy the argument, but negating all five choices takes time and sometimes I'm still not confident with my choice. I also find that I'm more hesitant to label incorrect answers as "out of scope" because necessary assumptions can offer new information.

If anyone has an effective approach to attacking wrong answers in necessary assumption questions, or if you've classified the characteristics of common wrong answers, I'd greatly appreciate your input. Thanks in advance!

[bbirdwell]

For one, I'm having trouble prephrasing. It's hard to anticipate a necessary assumption answer, so instead I've just been trying to find gaps (assumes that, fails to consider, etc.) between the premises and conclusion rather than prephrasing a necessary assumption. It's the same strategy I use for strengthen/weaken/suff. assumption/flaw/principle support questions. Is this the advisable approach or should I be handling it a different way?

I think this is a good strategy - it's the one we teach in our strategy guides. You don't necessarily need to phrase your anticipations in the "assumes that" or "fails to consider" form, but there's nothing wrong with that, either. The key is to look for gaps/term shifts/discrepancies between the premise and the conclusion.

While it is hard to anticipate what the correct choice will SAY, it's not as hard to anticipate what it should DO (ie close or partially close major gaps, rule out alternative explanations, etc).

My second and more concerning issue relates to wrong answer choices. Too often I find myself saying "you don't have to assume that!" rather than finding precise, substantive reasons for denying answers. Often times I'll prove an answer wrong by demonstrating that the negated version doesn't destroy the argument, but negating all five choices takes time and sometimes I'm still not confident with my choice. I also find that I'm more hesitant to label incorrect answers as "out of scope" because necessary assumptions can offer new information.

I don't actually see a problem with saying "you don't have to assume that" as explanation for incorrect answers. True, the negation test should be used sparingly -- to break a tie between two, or simply to confirm your correct answer.

"Out of scope" is definitely an over-used description, but there are certainly answers that are out of scope. They typically have common phrases such as "for purposes other than..."

In sum, there is no magic-bullet answer for this. The bottom line is that IT's A GREAT QUESTION TO ASK!! What makes these choices wrong? What IS a necessary assumption? Spend some time simply comparing wrong answers to one another, seeing common patterns, etc.

Another idea is to focus on the easiest examples you can find. Work with necessary assumptions within the first 10 of a few LR sections. Don't overcomplicate them. Let them be easy. Understanding how the easiest ones function is the key to recognizing WHAT exactly makes the hard ones hard.