Tag Archive: diagram

/ /

Last Minute Tips: Logic Games

With less than three weeks until the June LSAT, it’s time to buckle down on studying. This week we’re offering one important last-minute tip for each LSAT section. Yesterday we tackled Reading Comprehension; today we’re talking Logic Games.

We’ve previously discussed how to find deductions and scenarios for different Logic Games, and that’s probably the most important overall skill you’ll need in order to crush the Logic Games section. However, as we head into the final weeks before the June LSAT, there’s one relatively small tweak that could significantly help your speed and understanding of each game: Making sure that your set-up and rules are as neat, clear, and accurate as possible.

/ / / / / /

Mistaking the Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

A question on the Top Law Schools message board caught our eye this week:

Is there a difference between ‘mistaking the sufficient condition for the necessary condition’ and ‘mistaking the necessary condition for the sufficient condition’? I can sort of see a difference, but I feel like it could be phrased either way and still be the same flaw.

This is a great question.  As it turns out, the two things have slightly different meanings.  If you mistake the sufficient condition for the necessary condition, you treat the thing that really is the necessary condition as if it were the sufficient condition.  If you mistake the necessary condition for the sufficient condition, you treat the thing that really is the necessary condition as if it were the sufficient condition.

/ / /

LSAT Logic: If You Read This, Then You’ll Be Awesome At Conditional Statments

No discussion of conditional statements would be complete without a thorough review of sufficient conditions. Luckily, and entirely coincidentally, that’s the topic of today’s post in our ongoing review of diagramming LR questions.

Simply put, the sufficient guarantees the necessary. As long as the sufficient condition is satisfied, the necessary must follow. For example:

“If you study hard, then you’ll do well on the LSAT.”

To illustrate this relationship, we’ll want to diagram the above with the sufficient condition leading to the necessary condition, in the form of:

Suff. —> Necc.