This test literally does whatever it wants to do, it has its own rules because if I say some in normal language, that literally means not all but some because if I meant all I would've said all not some! But I digress
@yam I think your instinct makes sense in everyday language; “some” feels like it means more than one.
But on the LSAT, we’re dealing with strict logical certainty. Logically, “some” only guarantees at least one. That’s the minimum that must be true.
Could it be two people? Maybe. Could it be ten people? Also possible. But for a must-be-true question, we can’t go beyond what’s guaranteed. The only thing we know with 100% certainty is that at least one person can read.
I wouldn't say you need to rewire, just keep everything in context. If this were a strengthening question, then showing that two or more people can read might help.
Hi all, I made another flashcard set. This time for memorizing Quantifiers. Flashcards are what really helped me in undergrad and so I decided to make them to companion my 7sage studies. Thought I'd share to help others who would benefit :) made a folder that I will most likely add more sets to as I go. Much Love and happy studying! https://quizlet.com/user/ehoffmanwallace/folders/lsat-7sage-flashcards
(I'm seething internally because there is no way this word should be inclusive of all, English is a bunch of languages in a trench coat waiting for us all in a dark alley, searching for our moments of weakness)
take for example: Some students in Ms. Smiths class are in theater club.
Imagine in your mind that you went into Ms. Smiths class, grabbed a handful of students, and that each of them are in fact members of the theater club. That would be your SOME.
What about the rest of the students though? Odds are that they are in theater club too. Therein lies your ALL.
Its not so much that some directly translates to all- but more so that some does not negate the rest, and that all might be part if the same group.
Hope this makes sense, if i'm wrong feel free to correct me!
@dannyurbina18387 All this makes more sense when you remember it's an exam for law school and that in stuff like law suits, contracts, etc... all this pedantic nitpicking is of the utmost importance lol. Gotta make sure everything can be defended in court.
Just confused on how some can mean all essentially.
I understand at least 1 and I understand all the way up to 19 but to say that 20 students can read out of the 20 in the class is not saying that some can read, it is saying all of the students in this class can read.
@ConqueringLSAT no, because the word "some" must mean "at least one"
knowing the rule is that it must include "at least one", there is no limit to the specific number of a group could be doing a specified action, like reading.
If a question says "some students", would that not mean it has to be at least 2, because students is in plural, implying there are multiple who can read?
#help - Is "some" not having an upper boundary relevant to questions on the LSAT? I don't know anyone that would refer to "all" as "some". In other words I feel that it makes more sense to refer to the 20 students in the example as "all". If someone used the word "some" to describe all 20 students, that seems misleading to me? Some seems to imply "not all".
The lower boundary of some is 1 and the upper boundary is 100 (all), all is a point (100), so if anything some can include all but all does not include some
So when they say some, they can mean at least 1 or all
"some not" is 0-99, at least one student cannot read. Possibly all students cannot read
"If it's true that "Some students in Mrs. Stoops' class can read," could it be that all twenty students in her class can read? The answer is yes."
its not though. if that was the case, then it would be "all" not some. also the upper boundary would change some to most, so some has to be less than 100% but shouldn't be more then 50%
@PierceBerardi Yes same here, because the word students is plural, so this would imply multiple students, so at least two. @Kevin_Lin Do I have this wrong?
@PierceBerardi I think they only say its only one and not two because I remember seeing that the answer choices on the test usually say "at least one" so its probably just a pointer for a future topic
@PranjalChaudhary It was explained in a tutoring session that for the case of the LSAT "some" could include the entire set as long as its at least one. As for "most" it could include the entire set because it is at the least more than 50 percent of the group in question.
Can someone explain how "some" can include "all"? I understand that "some" must mean at least 1, as if you have some of something , it is impossible to not have "some" of said thing. However, how can "some" include all? If I have a portion, or "some" of a chocolate bar, I am not saying I have the entire bar. Wouldn't you need to specify "some or all students" for example to include the assumption that it can be "all" or "20" that can read? #help
In everyday use, when someone says some, you would think they do not mean all. But when you think about it, when someone use the word some, it doesnt mean they are using the entire population of people.
Example: Some teachers are nice. If there are 10 teachers and they are all nice, you could pick 3 of them (which we can all agree is some) and they would all be nice. Therefore some teachers are nice.
@OliverJakacki okay so i just searched it up and apparently its a common assumption that the word "some" goes both ways. What guarantees that there is one that isn't though, is the word not all.
glad I looked into this because apparently it's also an old trick that LSAC likes to do, where some = not all
Here, we look at the range of quantifiers that the word “some” can describe. In the previous lesson, we established that the quantifier “some” has a lower boundary. It’s ambiguous, but that doesn’t mean all interpretations are reasonable. There are boundaries that carve out reasonable interpretations.
“Some” must include at least “one”. → In other words, if the claim that some students in Mrs. Stoops’s class can read is true, then what must be true is that at least one student in her can read. That’s what we mean by the lower boundary.
“Some students in Mrs. Stoops’s class can read”
At least one student can read ← must be true.
“Must be true is a lower bound” It’s saying that below this boundary, the claim has to be false. The false phrase would be “no student can read”. That statement is incompatible with this statement that some students in Mrs. Stoops can read.
In other words, inclusive of one and exclusive of zero. That must be true. Could all 20 students be listed as the ones who can read yes because it doesn't have to be true but it could be true. All 20 students in her class being able to read is not being excluded by the claim that some students in Mrs. Stoop’s class can read.
Think about the quantifiers “some” as a range. The range of “some” starts with the lower boundary of at least one, but it could go up to include as many as “all”.
RECAP:
The lower boundary for “some” is “at least one”. “Some” does not have an upper boundary. It could potentially include all members of the group in question.
Think of “some” as establishing a range that starts with a minimum of one (the lower boundary) and could extend to include the entire set.
Thank God I'm not raw dogging the LSAT cause this concept was new to me. You mean to tell me some is inclusive of the term all, too? Do pre-law courses teach this stuff? I missed out.
121 comments
omg, never in a million years could I have guessed that SOME was inclusive of ALL. Lots of unlearning to do ig.
This test literally does whatever it wants to do, it has its own rules because if I say some in normal language, that literally means not all but some because if I meant all I would've said all not some! But I digress
haha. For real
in my head, "some" ranges between 2-19 but i guess it's time to rewire that🥀
@yam I think your instinct makes sense in everyday language; “some” feels like it means more than one.
But on the LSAT, we’re dealing with strict logical certainty. Logically, “some” only guarantees at least one. That’s the minimum that must be true.
Could it be two people? Maybe. Could it be ten people? Also possible. But for a must-be-true question, we can’t go beyond what’s guaranteed. The only thing we know with 100% certainty is that at least one person can read.
I wouldn't say you need to rewire, just keep everything in context. If this were a strengthening question, then showing that two or more people can read might help.
Hi all, I made another flashcard set. This time for memorizing Quantifiers. Flashcards are what really helped me in undergrad and so I decided to make them to companion my 7sage studies. Thought I'd share to help others who would benefit :) made a folder that I will most likely add more sets to as I go. Much Love and happy studying! https://quizlet.com/user/ehoffmanwallace/folders/lsat-7sage-flashcards
@Elideebeep GOAT activities
@OmarKouidere hahahahaha
@Elideebeep Thank you!!!
@NkwanziBanage sure thing!
@Elideebeep ur amazing
@ICAST happy to help :)
Some of these lessons are less linguistically convincing than others.
Range - at least one lesson, possibly all of them though
Great info!
(I'm seething internally because there is no way this word should be inclusive of all, English is a bunch of languages in a trench coat waiting for us all in a dark alley, searching for our moments of weakness)
Looks like I have some new memorizing to do!
Shouldn't the upper limit of some be all minus 1? Some implies a portion (regardless of how large the portion) but not all.
exactly
Hopefully I get some of the questions right on the LSAT.
Hopefully some includes all!
So "some" can mean all now? interesting lol
Some = sum hahahaaha
OMG I THINK I GET IT!
take for example: Some students in Ms. Smiths class are in theater club.
Imagine in your mind that you went into Ms. Smiths class, grabbed a handful of students, and that each of them are in fact members of the theater club. That would be your SOME.
What about the rest of the students though? Odds are that they are in theater club too. Therein lies your ALL.
Its not so much that some directly translates to all- but more so that some does not negate the rest, and that all might be part if the same group.
Hope this makes sense, if i'm wrong feel free to correct me!
yeah I have to say- as much as i'm willing to bend my natural instincts to fit LSAT logic, I just cannot accept that some could mean all. like, what??
clever lol
@dannyurbina18387 All this makes more sense when you remember it's an exam for law school and that in stuff like law suits, contracts, etc... all this pedantic nitpicking is of the utmost importance lol. Gotta make sure everything can be defended in court.
This absolutely just broke down my years of learning english as a second language, do I have to rethink the meaning of words from now on?
Not necessarily. The official "logical" definition of a word is often different from the common-sense usage
W
wow learning something new here. Did not know some could include all
@PeachATL this^^
Just confused on how some can mean all essentially.
I understand at least 1 and I understand all the way up to 19 but to say that 20 students can read out of the 20 in the class is not saying that some can read, it is saying all of the students in this class can read.
@AnyahJoseph815 Yeah, I had the same thought. If there are 20 students and all 20 of them can read, then the statement doesn't make sense.
theres no way that some could mean all. that just makes no sense
some is only used when all can't be
How is 'some' inclusive of ALL? Wouldnt it say 'all' if it included everyone in the sample? Im confused
@ConqueringLSAT no, because the word "some" must mean "at least one"
knowing the rule is that it must include "at least one", there is no limit to the specific number of a group could be doing a specified action, like reading.
wow ok..some can mean all good to know lmao
If a question says "some students", would that not mean it has to be at least 2, because students is in plural, implying there are multiple who can read?
i have the same question too. "some" is used for multiple, especially since students is also plural
#help - Is "some" not having an upper boundary relevant to questions on the LSAT? I don't know anyone that would refer to "all" as "some". In other words I feel that it makes more sense to refer to the 20 students in the example as "all". If someone used the word "some" to describe all 20 students, that seems misleading to me? Some seems to imply "not all".
Hope this helps
The lower boundary of some is 1 and the upper boundary is 100 (all), all is a point (100), so if anything some can include all but all does not include some
So when they say some, they can mean at least 1 or all
"some not" is 0-99, at least one student cannot read. Possibly all students cannot read
"If it's true that "Some students in Mrs. Stoops' class can read," could it be that all twenty students in her class can read? The answer is yes."
its not though. if that was the case, then it would be "all" not some. also the upper boundary would change some to most, so some has to be less than 100% but shouldn't be more then 50%
@GDatria715 Yeah, I do agree with you. If 20 students can read, then it should be "all".
@marikitten03 to your point if 10 can read...shouldnt it be half and then anything after that be "most" or even "many" or "several"....
Am I crazy, or does saying "some students" actually imply at least 2 students, not 1 student?
@PierceBerardi Yes same here, because the word students is plural, so this would imply multiple students, so at least two. @Kevin_Lin Do I have this wrong?
@PierceBerardi I think they only say its only one and not two because I remember seeing that the answer choices on the test usually say "at least one" so its probably just a pointer for a future topic
How could it include the entire set ?
@PranjalChaudhary It was explained in a tutoring session that for the case of the LSAT "some" could include the entire set as long as its at least one. As for "most" it could include the entire set because it is at the least more than 50 percent of the group in question.
Can someone explain how "some" can include "all"? I understand that "some" must mean at least 1, as if you have some of something , it is impossible to not have "some" of said thing. However, how can "some" include all? If I have a portion, or "some" of a chocolate bar, I am not saying I have the entire bar. Wouldn't you need to specify "some or all students" for example to include the assumption that it can be "all" or "20" that can read? #help
In everyday use, when someone says some, you would think they do not mean all. But when you think about it, when someone use the word some, it doesnt mean they are using the entire population of people.
Example: Some teachers are nice. If there are 10 teachers and they are all nice, you could pick 3 of them (which we can all agree is some) and they would all be nice. Therefore some teachers are nice.
I think the logical definition of some differs from the colloquial use of language.
Some are "an indeterminate amount", which means it can be all.
Source:https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/28041/does-some-necessarily-imply-not-all
Hope this helps!
Think about it in terms of logic here. If all of the students can read, and some means at least one, doesn't that also mean that some kids can read?
I've always thought that "some" would also guarantee that there is at least one in the group that does not fit that category.
so why do you say some could mean all?
@OliverJakacki okay so i just searched it up and apparently its a common assumption that the word "some" goes both ways. What guarantees that there is one that isn't though, is the word not all.
glad I looked into this because apparently it's also an old trick that LSAC likes to do, where some = not all
edit: bro talked about it in the next video 🤦♂️
Clean version of my notes...
Here, we look at the range of quantifiers that the word “some” can describe. In the previous lesson, we established that the quantifier “some” has a lower boundary. It’s ambiguous, but that doesn’t mean all interpretations are reasonable. There are boundaries that carve out reasonable interpretations.
“Some” must include at least “one”. → In other words, if the claim that some students in Mrs. Stoops’s class can read is true, then what must be true is that at least one student in her can read. That’s what we mean by the lower boundary.
“Some students in Mrs. Stoops’s class can read”
At least one student can read ← must be true.
“Must be true is a lower bound” It’s saying that below this boundary, the claim has to be false. The false phrase would be “no student can read”. That statement is incompatible with this statement that some students in Mrs. Stoops can read.
In other words, inclusive of one and exclusive of zero. That must be true. Could all 20 students be listed as the ones who can read yes because it doesn't have to be true but it could be true. All 20 students in her class being able to read is not being excluded by the claim that some students in Mrs. Stoop’s class can read.
Think about the quantifiers “some” as a range. The range of “some” starts with the lower boundary of at least one, but it could go up to include as many as “all”.
RECAP:
The lower boundary for “some” is “at least one”. “Some” does not have an upper boundary. It could potentially include all members of the group in question.
Think of “some” as establishing a range that starts with a minimum of one (the lower boundary) and could extend to include the entire set.
Definitely a little bit confusing but I understand it like this:
some doesn't necessarily mean all, but it can mean all.
What some definitely means though, is more than one.
@AyeshaShafiuddin I am laughing at the fact that I predicted the next lesson with this comment. LOL.
@AyeshaShafiuddin "Students" also means more than one... It's plural. How can it be inclusive of one?
Thank God I'm not raw dogging the LSAT cause this concept was new to me. You mean to tell me some is inclusive of the term all, too? Do pre-law courses teach this stuff? I missed out.
@fawful shouldn't you be in the beanbean kingdom lil bro
@OliverJakacki Cackletta want me to get my JD to take over one day. Beanbean kingdom succession requires less brawn more brain.
@fawful sounds like you still have chortles
@OliverJakacki nah man, I have fury!