Q22 - The folktale that claims that

[AliceInWonderland]

The stem says that we are looking for an assumption the argument "requires" in order for its conclusion to be "properly drawn". So does this mean that we are looking for an assumption which is necessary and sufficient?

We have another example of this type of stem at PT 33, S1, 10.

I had the same confusion initially, but after rereading the question stem, I believe the focus is on the word "requires" rather than the phrase "properly drawn" - if you simplify the question stem, it'll read "Which one is an assumption the argument requires?" Stuff after "in order for" are secondary. So here we're looking for a necessary assumption.

If the question wanted us to identify a sufficient assumption instead, it would be phrased like this: "Which one is an assumption that, when assumed, would allow the argument's conclusion to be properly drawn?" You can also refer to real sufficient assumption question stems on any practice test (definitely better phrased than mine). Here's one from this very practice test (PT30.S4.1): "The main conclusion above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?"

[RamseyM415]

(E) raises a question about commonsense on the LSAT. So I dismissed (E) because the negation of (E) doesn't wreck the argument, as far as I can tell, due to the possibility that rattlesnakes could have a steady food supply that does not vary. If that were the case, (E) would not be a necessary assumption.

However, I'm assuming the LSAT folks would rebut this claim by saying it's commonsense that food supply for an animal will not be steady in all cases. Am I correct?

Also, am I correct in saying that this is a feature of old tests more so than new? I can't recall any NA questions from tests 70-90 that would require you to make some "commonsense leap" like this to see why a answer is correct/why a negation would destroy an argument.

Thanks in advance!!!