LSAT Sufficient Assumption Practice Question: Missing Bridge
An original sufficient assumption question from our free Question of the Day rotation, built around a trap the LSAT reuses constantly: missing bridge. Try it first, then read the explanation — it teaches the move, not just the answer.
Your job:Find what would make the conclusion follow with certainty.
The rules of the Harwick County Fair state that any dessert entered in the fair that contains foraged berries qualifies for the Wildcrafted Prize. Tomas has entered a galette made with foraged huckleberries. The fair's newsletter concludes that Tomas's galette will therefore be evaluated by the Wildcrafted Prize judges.
The newsletter's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Show the answer & full explanation
The correct answer is C
The JBDM line
Just because the galette qualifies doesn't mean the judges will look at it — unless qualifying guarantees evaluation.
The maybes
- MaybeMaybe only a shortlist of qualifying desserts gets judged.
- MaybeMaybe entrants must also submit paperwork before judging.
Why C is right
Map the gap. Premises get you to 'the galette QUALIFIES.' The conclusion says it 'will be EVALUATED.' The missing bridge is qualifies → evaluated, and this answer supplies it as a universal rule. Add it, and the conclusion follows with certainty — the sufficient-assumption standard.
Why the others are wrong
- ABeing the only berry entry still doesn't guarantee anyone evaluates it.
- BThe judges' foraging résumés are decoration; they bridge nothing.
- DSome non-berry desserts getting judged tells you nothing about whether qualifying ones are.
- ECareful — this says non-qualifiers aren't evaluated, which is the wrong direction: it never guarantees that qualifiers ARE.
Sammy's note
Sufficient assumptions are bridges built from thin air: premise terms on one side, conclusion terms on the other, an 'every' holding them together.
What's a JBDM line?
Just Because Doesn't Mean (JBDM) is the Burton Method's foundational framework for attacking LSAT arguments: identify the premise, identify the conclusion, then say "just because [premise] doesn't mean [conclusion]" and generate "maybes" — alternative explanations that expose the gap between them. That gap is what weaken, flaw, strengthen, and assumption questions all test, so every explanation on this page starts with the JBDM line. It's a micro-lesson in the system, not just an answer key.
One question a day builds the habit
Answer today's question and start a streak — then see how Sammy teaches the whole system, JBDM included, in a free lesson.