# The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express

Ravi. on November 10, 2018

Missing Premise Drills

Hi, I'm having a really hard time understanding the missing premise drills. I reviewed the video, and your response to Philippa a couple days ago but it really isn't clicking for some reason. I don't understand how we know what is going to be the sufficient condition in the missing premises, and the right answers seem to change from flash card to flash card. Please help.

Mehran on November 10, 2018

Let's try a missing premise drill together to see if it helps:

P: B ==> Not X

P: ?

P: Not A ==> Z

C: Not Z ==> Not X

Okay so first these are Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions in the abstract.

The idea is there is a gap in the argument and we are looking for the answer choice that would make the conclusion follow logically.

Notice the sufficient condition of your conclusion is â€œnot Zâ€ so that is where I will start.

Contrapositive of P3 is Not Z ==> A

So we have A but then we are stuck because A is not a sufficient condition of any of our premises.

So the jump here clearly will relate to A.

We are trying to get to â€œNot Xâ€ because that is your necessary condition of the conclusion.

P1 gives us â€œNot Xâ€ because â€œB ==> Not Xâ€

So if we can connect A to B we would complete this argument logically as follows:

not Z ==> A ==> B ==> not X

So the missing premise is A ==> B.

Hope that helps!

If you would like to see this concept taken out of the abstract and applied on an actual LSAT questions, please review this question from the June 2007 LSAT: https://testmaxprep.com/lsat/lsat-practice-videos/june-2007-lsat/section-2-question-6-explanation