Dear LSAT Dan,
Thank you so, so much for the great clarification! I will refer to your response from time to time whenever I get confused about assumptions again. One thing I am wondering about is how in the LSAT Trainer, we are told (if I understood correctly) to view all LR arguments as “flawed arguments”, and that our approach should be “why doesn’t the support justify the conclusion?”
Then, in the case of necessary assumption questions, should I also immediately view the arguments as flawed?
In your example, “To get into law school, one must do well on the LSAT. Therefore, one needs to study in order to get into law school.”, should I approach this argument as a flawed one and ask, “why doesn’t the support prove the conclusion?”. Is recognizing whether an argument is flawed not helpful in answering necessary assumption questions?
I am afraid that I may be over-stepping the fine line between assumption and flaw questions by thinking this way. Thank you so much, once again!!