Subscription pricing
I understand that few means some are, most are not.
Ex) Few will show up unless there’s free booze.
/FB -> FS If there’s no free booze, then few will show up. (some will, most will not)
contrapostives:
/FS -> FB If not few show up (some will not, most will), then there’s free booze.
JY equated the second translation as 'If most show up, then there's free booze.'
Can the translation of ‘not few' also be ‘none’ as it also means some will not?
Thank you in advance!
0
3 comments
Nice application of deMorgan's @quinnxzhang542 . I hadn't thought of that.
I understand that few means some are, most are not.
Right, so using this understanding, "Few A's are B's" is equivalent to "(Some A's are B's) and not(Most A's are B's)".
The negation of "Few A's are B's" is "not(Few A's are B's)".
Substituting in the equivalence above, this negation is equivalent to "not((Some A's are B's) and not(Most A's are B's))".
Applying De Morgan's gives you "not(Some A's are B's) or (Most A's are B's)".
As noted above, "not some" is equivalent to "none", so we get "(no A's are B's) or (most A's are B's)".
Thus, if you're correct in your understanding of "few", we've shown that "not few" is equivalent to "none or most".
Yes. The negation of "Some will show up” is not “some will not show up” (what I think you’re implying; I’m not 100% sure). The negation of "Some will show up” is "None will show up”
. Remember “some” is a range of 1-100. Its binary cut is None.
However, most instances on the LSAT will require the "Most are not” understanding of “few”, which is probably why JY equated the second translation to 'If most show up, then there's free booze.’
Hope this helps.