• Contact Us
  • Student Login
  • My Cart

LSAT and Law School Admissions Blog

You are here: Home / LSAT PodCast / LSAT PodCast Episode 12: Sufficient Assumption/Justify the Conclusion Questions

April 17, 2019

LSAT PodCast Episode 12: Sufficient Assumption/Justify the Conclusion Questions

Episode 12 continues the discussion from the last episode by looking at the other Assumption question type: Sufficient Assumptions (also known as Justify the Conclusion). Dave and Jon provide an extensive analysis of this unique LR task, exploring everything from how to spot Justify questions to the relationship between Assumption and Justify—key similarities and differences—to powerful mechanistic techniques like the Justify Formula to help you confidently solve even the trickiest examples!

You can find the episode below, but make sure to subscribe/follow and rate/review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or Stitcher!

Timestamps

0:00 – Intro.

4:28 – This Week In The LSAT World/March 2019 Test Score Release.

9:59 – Intro to Sufficient Assumption/Justify the Conclusion Questions.

11:43 – Necessary Assumptions vs. Sufficient Assumptions.

31:11 – Justify Formula.

40:03 – Supporter/Defender in Justify.

48:23 – Mechanistic Approach.

1:06:41 – Outro.

FacebookTweetPinEmail

Posted by PowerScore Test Prep / Logical Reasoning, LSAT PodCast / Logical Reasoning, LSAT Podcast, LSAT Prep 2 Comments

Comments

  1. Rain says

    April 18, 2019 at 10:42 am

    Good early morning, Thank you and of course the PodCast always entertaining and informative, both of you gentleman were in rare form. Question: I always have that problem with the Justify principal where: The quanifiers(hope spelling it right) most, all and some are insiduously interspersed in a lot in these LR questions (and in fact I get thrown off) like in the stimulus starts with ‘most’ then the succinct answer choices end with and may have similiar aspects and phrasing such as; some grey cats or, all grey cats ….,etc. for the unsuspected test taker to choose from; Indeed, unless,its stated in the stimulus its invalid, incorrect, right? It’s an enigma to me as such, therefore, how do I use the mechanistic approach or the proper approach respectfully requesting, to deconstruct this effectively Mr. Jon and Mr. Dave? Also, I will practice more to get the feeling of being comfortable but, right now I need to know where did I go wrong or not?Thank you no rush for the answer.( Mr. Jon thank you for the good taste in music Mr. Herbie Hancock).

    Reply
    • Jon Denning says

      April 20, 2019 at 1:15 am

      Hey Rain – thanks as always for listening!

      I’m not sure I *totally* understand your question(s), but I’ll give this a shot nonetheless. And I’ll do so in two parts so that I’m more likely to address your question (even if I’m not perfectly clear on it) 🙂

      First, if you’re talking about understanding proper Formal Logic, where you have relationships between some/most/all/none type statements, then that’s a whole separate issue/discipline than Justify alone, and likely warrants some direct investigation. Being able to properly connect those pieces, make inferences, and find errors isn’t a terribly common scenario on the LSAT, but since you bring it up (and it gives you trouble) spend some time working on it. For reference, we have several Formal Logic instruction modules and documents in our Online Student Center for currently-enrolled course students that will be a huge help!

      Second, if your worries are more directly related to Justify and you’re wondering what it takes–and what fails–to prove statements with words like some, most, and all, then the key thing to remember is you can only work from more absolute or specific to less, never in reverse!

      That is, if you’re trying to prove an idea like “most As are Bs,” you could do it with a synonymous statement like “the majority of As are Bs,” or “fewer than half of As are not Bs,” or you could say something even stronger like “All As are Bs,” or “Every A is a B,” etc. What you can’t do is try to get to “most” from a weaker idea, like “some”: “Some As are Bs,” or “Some Bs are As” won’t do it.

      So as a Justify answer choice looking to prove a stimulus conclusion with “most” in it, you know you need another most or stronger for it to have a chance.

      Ditto some and all:

      Some can be proven by anything except “none” (so by another some/at least one, by most/majority, or by all/every).

      All requires an equally strong piece of supporting evidence, with all, every, each, 100%, or similar. Nothing less will do.

      From a mechanistic standpoint then you know if there’s a rogue element with a word like that, especially in the conclusion, you’re looking for that same degree of strength or greater as the proving answer choice.

      I hope that helps! Either way, keep jamming to Herbie Hancock 🙂

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Attend a PowerScore Webinar!

Popular Posts

  • Podcast Episode 168: The 2025 US News Law School Rankings
  • Podcast Episode 167: April 2025 LSAT Recap
  • Podcast Episode 166: LSAT Faceoff: Dave and Jon Debate Five Common Test Concerns
  • Podcast Episode 165: February 2025 LSAT Recap
  • Podcast Episode 164: State of the LSAT Union: 2024 Recap and 2025 Preview

Categories

  • Pinterest
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!