Cases where switching if then clauses are sufficient but not necessary?

[davidp95]

So dumb question.

I did notes on mistaken reversal and I learned that it's when they mistake a necessary for sufficient. A->B, B->A

However, on page 101 of the lsat trainer, Mike Kim gives examples where the two reverse but he states it's enough but not necessary.

"If you finish college, you are certain to be financially successful. Therefore, if you want to be financially successful, you must finish college."

I do see how the language used can lead it to be a sufficient mistaken for a necessary.

But he gives other similar examples

"Having over 10k in your account entitles you to free checking. Since you have free checking, you must have over 10k in your account. "

These arguments do feel like they are affirming the consequence to state that the antecedent is true. But they're flipping the A if B part and jts really messing with me. Or am I seeing things wrong?

Any help would be greatly appreciated

[davidp95]

My apologies I see where I have made a mistake. I was fixated on the "certain to be a financially successful" I was like wait it moved a necessary part to the sufficient part - how does this mean it sufficient but not enough. It would make sense that if an argument moves a necessary part to the sufficient part then the sufficient part moves to the necessary part.