during these ambiguous questions, is it safe to assume that when they say some student(s) (plural) that it is 2 or greater? (rather than just 1 or greater)?
Hmm, I think the example of "a heap of sand" slightly confuses me. If there is "a heap" of sand, then there must be at least 1 sand grain. Then how is it different from "some" in this regard?
Am i correct in that words like "all, every, etc" like we have learned in past conditional lessons, would make the intersecting sets become a conditional relationship? one of the differences with intersecting sets from subset/superset is that in the latter, all members of a group are within an umbrella of the necessary condition, not some of them, or most of them. So once it's only a bit of overlap, then we have to switch our perspective to the quantifier intersecting set language because it's explaining a different relationship in which there is non-guaranteed 100% overlap as there is in the conditional relationship. Is that right?
is the reason why we have a small circle and a bigger circle because the small one is a subset and the bigger one is the superset? can anyone please clarify
Am I mistaken or does "some students" imply at least 2, not at least 1 students? The quantifier does NOT say "some of the students", it says some students, as in a plural amount. If it was one student it wouldn't fit, right?
What might be the sharp boundaries for a quantifier like "several", or "many"? "Some" is explained above, and most entails a majority, but what of these other ones? Thank you.
Doesn't vagueness have some, or at least one, sharp boundary condition even if it's fuzzy? For example, one grain of sand isn't a heap ("a disorderly collection of objects placed haphazardly on top of each other") while two grains of sand seems unclear if it is. Therefore, one gain of sand is a sharp boundary for 'heap,' namely that it isn't a heap.
The lesson takes lower boundaries of ambiguities like 'some' and says it has a sharp boundary and vague concepts like 'heap' as having a fuzzy boundary, but thinking of what would constitute a lower boundary for 'heap' seems like it would be a sharp boundary in the same way as 'some' has a sharp boundary. For upper boundaries, this distinction between sharp boundaries and fuzzy boundaries might be different and I think probably is. Yet, in this lesson alone, given the two examples, lower boundaries between the two aren't exactly different in the way it's making it out to be .
In the full diagram, it says that ambiguous quantifiers have "sharp upper and lower boundaries." But in the next lesson (ie. lesson 3) it says that the ambiguous quantifier, 'Some,' "does not have an upper boundary."
This seems to me like either an error or improperly explained.
I got to give feedback on how well this V2 version is organized. It is so much better than V1. I started learning Quantifiers after like 30% of the actual LR section ON V1, I love how this is introduced way before actually starting LR. #feedback
13
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
28 comments
during these ambiguous questions, is it safe to assume that when they say some student(s) (plural) that it is 2 or greater? (rather than just 1 or greater)?
Hmm, I think the example of "a heap of sand" slightly confuses me. If there is "a heap" of sand, then there must be at least 1 sand grain. Then how is it different from "some" in this regard?
Some bare minimum is 1 but is upper limit just under 50%
A "heap of sand" seems to suggest a sharp lower bound of at least 1 grain of sand
Am i correct in that words like "all, every, etc" like we have learned in past conditional lessons, would make the intersecting sets become a conditional relationship? one of the differences with intersecting sets from subset/superset is that in the latter, all members of a group are within an umbrella of the necessary condition, not some of them, or most of them. So once it's only a bit of overlap, then we have to switch our perspective to the quantifier intersecting set language because it's explaining a different relationship in which there is non-guaranteed 100% overlap as there is in the conditional relationship. Is that right?
is the reason why we have a small circle and a bigger circle because the small one is a subset and the bigger one is the superset? can anyone please clarify
Am I mistaken or does "some students" imply at least 2, not at least 1 students? The quantifier does NOT say "some of the students", it says some students, as in a plural amount. If it was one student it wouldn't fit, right?
What might be the sharp boundaries for a quantifier like "several", or "many"? "Some" is explained above, and most entails a majority, but what of these other ones? Thank you.
#philosophicaldigression
Doesn't vagueness have some, or at least one, sharp boundary condition even if it's fuzzy? For example, one grain of sand isn't a heap ("a disorderly collection of objects placed haphazardly on top of each other") while two grains of sand seems unclear if it is. Therefore, one gain of sand is a sharp boundary for 'heap,' namely that it isn't a heap.
The lesson takes lower boundaries of ambiguities like 'some' and says it has a sharp boundary and vague concepts like 'heap' as having a fuzzy boundary, but thinking of what would constitute a lower boundary for 'heap' seems like it would be a sharp boundary in the same way as 'some' has a sharp boundary. For upper boundaries, this distinction between sharp boundaries and fuzzy boundaries might be different and I think probably is. Yet, in this lesson alone, given the two examples, lower boundaries between the two aren't exactly different in the way it's making it out to be .
Hi! Can someone explain in more detail how this is different from vagueness?
#feedback
In the full diagram, it says that ambiguous quantifiers have "sharp upper and lower boundaries." But in the next lesson (ie. lesson 3) it says that the ambiguous quantifier, 'Some,' "does not have an upper boundary."
This seems to me like either an error or improperly explained.
I got to give feedback on how well this V2 version is organized. It is so much better than V1. I started learning Quantifiers after like 30% of the actual LR section ON V1, I love how this is introduced way before actually starting LR. #feedback