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
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.
SORE WA CHIGAU YO - "Some students can read" is not 1. In English, that phrase means at least 2 due to the plural wording. To make the wording inclusive of singulars, it must utilize ambiguity. "Some students might be able to read".
@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.
I'm trying to think of how "some" can possibly mean "all."
Some inherently makes me think that it, the total quantity of anything is a value of the whole. If that value is up to the total quantity then it becomes all but also some? That is a bit of a stretch for my brain.
"Can I have some orange juice?" or "Every day a person needs some orange juice."
It could mean they are given all of the orange juice because they're annoyed they have to make another trip to the fridge.
I guess in that case if we're looking at this like a necessary quantify above none of it of it, it could also mean you could have a teaspoon of a carton or the whole carton, but even then you still have not consumed all the orange juice in existence.
@fjnathaniel imagine someone asks you if dogs like to be pet. You only have experience with your own dog, who does like to be pet, so you say "Some dogs like to be pet."
Are you implying that there must be some dogs that don't like to be pet?
@Kevin_Lin In this case, yes. I would be implying that there may be some dogs that don't like to be pet. How can I guarantee that all dogs like to be pet? Please explain.
@180-Energy You're not ruling out the possibility that there might be some dogs that don't like to be pet. But your'e not saying that they definitely exist. You're not denying the possibility that all dogs like to be pet. Your state of knowledge about all other dogs besides your own dog is simply ???
(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)
@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.
@e.wimoine To my understanding, several is the same as some. Any quantifier which is ambiguous (this means excluding words like most, all) has at least a count of 1, but without context we would not be able to infer more.
I have to say this may be where you lose me. the phrase "Some students... can read..." uses the plural "Students," which necessitates more than 1 when you use the unambiguous "can."
If you were to switch the phrase to "Some students...May be able to read..." then it signifies a lack of certainty, which allows for the inclusivity of a quantity of 1. I would argue that if the initial premise says "Some students can..." then it must mean that more than one student can read. Otherwise, it one could be inclusive with the less certain modified statement above or with the alternate "At least one student... can read." Plural+definitive is ALWAYS more than one.
So my question is: how do we know when to accept incorrect sentence structure in order to presume the author's meaning vs. when to parse the sentence structure to obtain the author's meaning?
@CallMeEric Here's the way I look at it: Some is indefinite language, meaning we're unsure. We refer to the entire class of "students" becasue we don't know if one or more of that group meets the conditions.
Example: Some of the mangos could be spoiled.
We don't know how many mangos in the group are spoiled. It could be one, it could be more. But until we're sure, we refer to the entire group. That's why we use plural language here, because until we're sure amount the amount of students who can read, we refer to the whole group
@CMas But even in the example you just gave, didn't use the definitive version of the verb "To Be." You didn't say "Some of the mangos ARE spoiled." What you did is the same thing that I said in my example, which you replied to. You said "Some of the mangoes 'could be' spoiled," using the subjunctive conjugation, instead of the definitive present-tense. We only use the definitive present-tense conjugation to express a state of assuredness. Your solid grasp of the English language did not allow you to use the definitive language to express doubt or a state of "unreality," even when you were attempting to tell me to do so. You automatically changed it because we all know inherently that it's incorrect.
This is what I was stating above when I laid out the problem with this question, as I said the following:
"If you were to switch the phrase to "Some students...May be able to read..." then it signifies a lack of certainty, which allows for the inclusivity of a quantity of 1"
You did the same thing. You changed "are" into "could be" and it became correct. "Could be," "May be," "might be," any of these subjunctive adverb modifier work in the original question, just as they do in your example. And I still don't know when we're supposed to abandon the rules of English vs when we're supposed to parse it.
@CallMeEric I think you're right in just translating it to at least one. If it's helpful, with "some" I think of it as a group of something. The group will have more than one member, so it will always be plural, but it's a singular group. So this group of students, some of them read. The them refers to the group of students because when it comes to a group of blank, you can to match the verb to the plural blank depending on the context (subject-verb agreement is wild with this), but you are talking about a singular entity. Do you know who would be a reader in the group? Not really, you just know there has to be at least one. Does that make sense that there's at least 2, probably, but do I want to make that jump? No, because at least 1 will cover that anyway. Let's take the opposite though. If there is only 1, but I've assumed 2? Now I'm in trouble.
Let's translate the Mrs. Stoops' class example. I'll be Mrs. Stoops. Let's say I teach, and at the school I teach I have a rival teacher, Mr. Rise, and I know MOST (so half or more) of his class can read. In my class, only one student can read. The other students are getting there and iffy, but one is for sure stellar at reading. Our class line is passing by his in the hall, and we chat. Then he drops this terrible question in front of all the students, "How many of your students read?" I don't want to tell him just one, that's terrible, what will all the other kids feel? So what do I say?
"Oh you know, some of them can!" and quickly change the subject. I know it's kind of a ridiculous situation, but I've banked on the ambiguity of "some" a lot, and I'm betting you probably have too.
(ex 1)
Mom: Have you been working on your final project?
Me: I got some work done, yeah.
Not a lot, but I at least did one thing. Maybe more who knows, but at least once, I picked up a pen and was working on this project.
(ex 2)
Me, after first date heading home: We had such a great chat, we should meet up again sometime!
I'm opening the possibility of one, and the plus is a question mark. Does this mean I want to see them twice after the first date? Maybe? Do I want to date them forever and seal the deal? Well, I don't know that for sure. What I do know is that I want to see them at least once. (you might say this is really a rejection, which is fair. But if you take the statement at point blank, literally, that's what this means)
And so it goes. The "some" is a blanket statement that's ambiguous enough that there's a lot of room for interpretation, but it's not infinite. But the lower limit is also thankfully low enough that this 1 amazing student gets their shine and the other students aren't embarrassed, and that I don't get rocked by my mom for not doing work on my final project, and that I get to leave the door open for romance without locking in 2+ dates or a marriage. Does this make me a liar? Thankfully no. Why? Because the baseline is 1 :)
Now if I said maybe for all of these, and used less definitive words, does that change the rule of 1+? No, but we are moving to hypotheticals. So in this hypothetical group, we have at least 1. It doesn't matter whether it's some can or some might, the some just means the 1+ and the can or might changes how we write and interpret the rules after. (I might have done some work =work 1+or haven't worked 1+, maybe we'll each other sometime = will see 1+ or /will see 1+, some students might be able to read = students that can read --> 1+ or /1+) I hope this helps!
@new_cheese I appreciate you writing all of this, but here's the problem with what you're saying:
First, you said "I think you're right in just translating it to at least one. If it's helpful, with "some" I think of it as a group of something. The group will have more than one member, so it will always be plural, but it's a singular group. So this group of students, some of them read. The them refers to the group of students because when it comes to a group of blank, you can to match the verb to the plural blank depending on the context (subject-verb agreement is wild with this), but you are talking about a singular entity."
But your explanation of subject-verb assignment is slightly wrong. The pronoun-verb pair of "them read" in your example does not refer to "group." It refers to "students." If you wanted to refer to the group, you'd use "it." But it's improper to refer to a group as being able to read since it is an inanimate representation or label for what is contained within it, so we say that the students can.
Let's say I have two groups of birds. The first group of birds is labeled "B" because they are blue. The second group of birds is "R" because they are "red."
The Group IS R or you might even say the second group IS red. But the birds "are" red. This is standardized for American English, though to be fair: if the LSAT were administered in England, you'd be correct that either is acceptable. However, that still would not change what's incorrect about this lesson, overall. And I'll demonstrate using your examples:
In your dating example, you say "We should meet up again sometime!" You use the collective, vague "sometime" to indicate meeting at some unspecified point in the future (different from "some time," btw, which would indicate that you want to meet up over an unspecified period or for an unspecified duration). If you had said "I want to go on some more dates with you," or "I hope we have "some" more dates," you're starting off with the plural, which indicates that you want at least two more dates. Which may come off as kind of thirsty, but hey, it doesn't take all day to recognize sunshine, so do you.
Likewise, you said "I've done some work." You used the collective, ambiguous "some work" because it does not necessarily indicate completion of even a single task.
"Have you started changing your oil yet?"
I went outside and started to halfway jack the car up in the driveway, which is half of the first step completed so...
"I've done some work on it..." The ambiguity, again, places the sentence into a state of "unreality" and allows for subjunctive phrasing, in which you don't know how much is done. There's only a single task and you've only complete half of the first step, yet "some work" is true. Likewise if the task is "homework" and you've opened your book and read the first word, you've done "Some work" without even completing a single task. You might have 20 tasks to do or just one. You don't need to complete a task in order for it to be true, so this is not even "1+," it is "x>0."
In your other example, which is essentially the same as the one that I was complaining about, the statement is simply false. As soon as you say "some of my students can" you're pluralizing it. The plurality of "some" specifically depends on the plurality/collectivity/singularness of the noun-verb agreement. It is collective or plural, depending on what follows.
For instance: If you say "Some student" can read, you are indicating that a single student can read, and the only question is which one.
If you say I've completed "some task" toward completing your homework, you've done exactly one thing, and you're being weirdly vague about what that task is. Maybe you've only sharpened your pencil. I don't know. But "Some tasks" would mean that you've completed multiple tasks.
Do you see how you changed your sentence structure to collective/ambiguous in your examples, rather than the plural example given in the lesson, which you repurposed fantastically? Whenever we use the definitive plural conjugation of a verb, it has to be x>1. The teacher in your example was simply saying something (s)he knew to be false in order to save face for the children.
@CallMeEric I see what you're saying. I picked ambiguous examples on purpose to illustrate the concept that some is at least one since you mentioned sentence structure and grammar. You could rewrite the sentences to be clearer, but that's not the point of the sentences for this exercise. I'm going to disagree with you about some work being x>0, the some work being no work feels like an assumption outside of the words being said relying on experiences where people say that as a way to avoid saying they didn't do anything. But the point of the test is to rely on the words as given and assume they are true. It's a difficult thing to illustrate, given how we intuitively understand some, so if it didn't help, that's on me. I just thought having some examples tied to real situations would help you grasp the concept that some could mean at least one. The reality being, the LSAT is particular, and for the sake of this test, some means at least one, whether we like it or not, or grammatically, whether that clicks for us or not. Whether assuming some means 2 will affect you on the test into making false assumptions or not is something you'll have to figure out, but quite frankly, that's not an assumption I want to make. There's a lot the test does that I think is a wild take on English, but it's a test I want to do well on, so I toss the rules out that I know. So to answer the original question, instead of examples, I think it's just a thing you'll have to figure out on your own as you build a sense of what the testers want you to do. JY said grammar sucks, but I think you've got a great handle on that end. It's just the building of a sense that's left. Wishing you the best, sorry I couldn't help more. I'm sure you'll figure it out-- when you do, would love to hear back. Cheers mate!
@new_cheese Oh, don't be sorry. It's not your job to make me understand it differently. I've determined that "Some>=1" is a rule I'll just have to remember. As for "some" being less than one, I wasn't making an assumption about your homework example, I was just expanding on it to show how some could possibly be less than one when using a collective term like "work" that can't always be easily quantified with integers. "I've done some work" towards making a sandwich means that you haven't necessarily finished making the whole sandwich, so it could still be less than one when we're not dealing with integers, even though "some" work has, indeed been done.
Ugh... I hope there aren't a lot of other situations where grammar and LSAT logic disagree. I'd much rather comprehend than remember, but like you said, in this case I'll just have to remember this one rule that "some" can =1. Thanks for your efforts.
@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.
A bit confusing, "some" would refer to a portion. So why not just say "all" ? I would have guessed "most students" for any thing above 10 since it would be half of Mrs. Stoops' class. So "some" is equal to "all"?
@VividQuenchingGift Logic is its own language. In English, some refers to a portion. In logic, some means 'at least 1.' This is true outside of the LSAT and if you take a Logic [especially Symbolic Logic] class at any point that is not related to the LSAT you will see that this rule is important when you get into more complex concepts.
Understanding the concept of 'some' as a range is incredibly important when using the language of Logic, because when we see 'some' we have to be able to hold in our minds the idea that it is anywhere between 'at least 1' and 'all.' A lot of the times we will never know what specific number 'some' represents, we have to train our minds to be okay with the idea of the range of some, which is the concept that is introduced in this video.
Some is not all. Some is at least 1 and can include as many as all. We do not know if it does. All is all, because the quantifier all lets us know for a FACT that everything in a set is included.
Some is possibly all, possibly most, possibly least, and at least 1. Some is not all, because we do not know what amount of a set is included.
--------------------------------------------
I'll use the example to try and make it even clearer:
There are 20 kids in Mrs. Troop's class. Some of the kids in Mrs. Troop's class can read.
So, first we know that Some = At least 1
So, if one kid in Mrs. Troop's class can read, then this logic is valid.
If 5 kids in Mrs. Troop's class can read, the logic is valid.
If 18 kids in Mrs. Troop's class can read, the logic is valid.
If 20 kids in Mrs. Troop's class can read, the logic is valid.
But then we get the question, if all 20 kids can read, why don't we use the quantifier All?
Because we don't know which one is true. When we see the quantifier some we must acknowledge that it exists as a Range.
Anything in the range of 1-20 (for this specific example) could make this statement logically valid. We don't know if some means 6 or some means 20. We just know that some means at least 1.
Since we don't know which one is true, then we can say that any are true, so we can say that all are true.
ANY number between 1 and 20 makes this a logically valid argument.
We do not have certainty that 20 kids can read. 20 kids could read, and that would satisfy the terms for logical validity, but 3 kids could read and that would also satisfy the terms for logical validity in this example.
Since we don't have certainty, we're not going to use All, but since there is the possibility, we use Some.
This is why Some can be as many as all.
--------------------------------------------
Also, I learned the concept of 'some is at least 1' in a logic class a while ago and I will say that all of the mental gymnastics that people try to do to escape from the fact that in Logic "some is at least 1" is just going to be confusing and not amount to anything.
Just do your best to accept it, get comfortable with the idea, and you'll be fine :)
@jordkerns what about the concept that "Students" is plural, and so, must be more than one? How do you wrap your head around that, because I'm trying to and can't.
@CallMeEric I would always include the modifier when assessing my subject. In this example I would always think of it as 'some students' not just 'students.' This will remind you that the modifier 'some' is what is important to this question -- not the word students. The question can say 'some students can read,' 'some apples are sweet,' 'some dogs are small," and in every case [some = at least one] and so each different version could be satisfied by one student reading, one apple being sweet, or one dog being small. It is the modifier that is relevant.
Also, like I mentioned above -- Logic and English are two different languages. In English, the word students is plural and thus demands that more than one student be able to read. In Logic the modifier Some overrides the plurality of the word students. In the language of logic the quantifier 'Some' always means at least one, nothing more, nothing less.
There are certain elements of the language of logic that do not have a 'comfortable' explanation when compared to the rules of the language of English. The rule that 'some equals at least one' is one of them. Memorize the rule and accept that (when using the language of Logic) it just is what it is and this type of problem becomes much easier. Hope this helps :)
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
That is because in day-to-day conversations in English, we often use "some" to mean "several" or "a few." People, including myself, use some to literally always mean more than one. However, some must include at least one. On the LSAT, they're not necessarily saying that there is only one of something, but in the example, it must be true that at least one student can read. I think JY really wants to emphasize that "some" is a range that must include at least one but can include up to all. I also think LSAT wants to ensure you know the difference between some, most, and all as their ranges differ. Overall, LSAT lingo /= day-to-day normal English lol. Hope this helps clear it up!
I think some students should be interpreted to mean more than one so the lower band should actually be 2 and not one because one only means "one student" and yet some students (being in plural) means more than one.
that is how we use it in normal language, but with normal language we make mistakes. The actual meaning of the word 'some' aligns with the logical interpretation.
Here is a definition from the internet:
1. an unspecified number or amount of people or things
2. at least a small amount or number of people or things
'1' is both a small amount and an amount of some given thing, however 0 is not.
I don't think the issue is with the word 'some', it is with the word 'students'. By saying 'students', which is plural, wouldn't that require that it's referring to more than one student?
So basically "some" is inclusionary since the lower bound begins at one and there is no upper range. So with this its like there is no limit? or is the limit the number that was placed? for example the 20 students?
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
91 comments
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
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.
SORE WA CHIGAU YO - "Some students can read" is not 1. In English, that phrase means at least 2 due to the plural wording. To make the wording inclusive of singulars, it must utilize ambiguity. "Some students might be able to read".
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.
I'm trying to think of how "some" can possibly mean "all."
Some inherently makes me think that it, the total quantity of anything is a value of the whole. If that value is up to the total quantity then it becomes all but also some? That is a bit of a stretch for my brain.
"Can I have some orange juice?" or "Every day a person needs some orange juice."
It could mean they are given all of the orange juice because they're annoyed they have to make another trip to the fridge.
I guess in that case if we're looking at this like a necessary quantify above none of it of it, it could also mean you could have a teaspoon of a carton or the whole carton, but even then you still have not consumed all the orange juice in existence.
@fjnathaniel imagine someone asks you if dogs like to be pet. You only have experience with your own dog, who does like to be pet, so you say "Some dogs like to be pet."
Are you implying that there must be some dogs that don't like to be pet?
@Kevin_Lin wow!
@Kevin_Lin In this case, yes. I would be implying that there may be some dogs that don't like to be pet. How can I guarantee that all dogs like to be pet? Please explain.
@180-Energy You're not ruling out the possibility that there might be some dogs that don't like to be pet. But your'e not saying that they definitely exist. You're not denying the possibility that all dogs like to be pet. Your state of knowledge about all other dogs besides your own dog is simply ???
some implies not all ... i cannot understand another way around that
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!
Wooooooowww so cool.
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.
Is "several" to be understood in the same way as "some"? i.e., at least one, could be up to all/100%?
@e.wimoine I was about to comment this as well
@JohnDemmler I feel several would have to be at least 2
@e.wimoine To my understanding, several is the same as some. Any quantifier which is ambiguous (this means excluding words like most, all) has at least a count of 1, but without context we would not be able to infer more.
@kae Thanks all!
I have to say this may be where you lose me. the phrase "Some students... can read..." uses the plural "Students," which necessitates more than 1 when you use the unambiguous "can."
If you were to switch the phrase to "Some students...May be able to read..." then it signifies a lack of certainty, which allows for the inclusivity of a quantity of 1. I would argue that if the initial premise says "Some students can..." then it must mean that more than one student can read. Otherwise, it one could be inclusive with the less certain modified statement above or with the alternate "At least one student... can read." Plural+definitive is ALWAYS more than one.
So my question is: how do we know when to accept incorrect sentence structure in order to presume the author's meaning vs. when to parse the sentence structure to obtain the author's meaning?
@CallMeEric Here's the way I look at it: Some is indefinite language, meaning we're unsure. We refer to the entire class of "students" becasue we don't know if one or more of that group meets the conditions.
Example: Some of the mangos could be spoiled.
We don't know how many mangos in the group are spoiled. It could be one, it could be more. But until we're sure, we refer to the entire group. That's why we use plural language here, because until we're sure amount the amount of students who can read, we refer to the whole group
@CMas But even in the example you just gave, didn't use the definitive version of the verb "To Be." You didn't say "Some of the mangos ARE spoiled." What you did is the same thing that I said in my example, which you replied to. You said "Some of the mangoes 'could be' spoiled," using the subjunctive conjugation, instead of the definitive present-tense. We only use the definitive present-tense conjugation to express a state of assuredness. Your solid grasp of the English language did not allow you to use the definitive language to express doubt or a state of "unreality," even when you were attempting to tell me to do so. You automatically changed it because we all know inherently that it's incorrect.
This is what I was stating above when I laid out the problem with this question, as I said the following:
"If you were to switch the phrase to "Some students...May be able to read..." then it signifies a lack of certainty, which allows for the inclusivity of a quantity of 1"
You did the same thing. You changed "are" into "could be" and it became correct. "Could be," "May be," "might be," any of these subjunctive adverb modifier work in the original question, just as they do in your example. And I still don't know when we're supposed to abandon the rules of English vs when we're supposed to parse it.
@CallMeEric I think you're right in just translating it to at least one. If it's helpful, with "some" I think of it as a group of something. The group will have more than one member, so it will always be plural, but it's a singular group. So this group of students, some of them read. The them refers to the group of students because when it comes to a group of blank, you can to match the verb to the plural blank depending on the context (subject-verb agreement is wild with this), but you are talking about a singular entity. Do you know who would be a reader in the group? Not really, you just know there has to be at least one. Does that make sense that there's at least 2, probably, but do I want to make that jump? No, because at least 1 will cover that anyway. Let's take the opposite though. If there is only 1, but I've assumed 2? Now I'm in trouble.
Let's translate the Mrs. Stoops' class example. I'll be Mrs. Stoops. Let's say I teach, and at the school I teach I have a rival teacher, Mr. Rise, and I know MOST (so half or more) of his class can read. In my class, only one student can read. The other students are getting there and iffy, but one is for sure stellar at reading. Our class line is passing by his in the hall, and we chat. Then he drops this terrible question in front of all the students, "How many of your students read?" I don't want to tell him just one, that's terrible, what will all the other kids feel? So what do I say?
"Oh you know, some of them can!" and quickly change the subject. I know it's kind of a ridiculous situation, but I've banked on the ambiguity of "some" a lot, and I'm betting you probably have too.
(ex 1)
Mom: Have you been working on your final project?
Me: I got some work done, yeah.
Not a lot, but I at least did one thing. Maybe more who knows, but at least once, I picked up a pen and was working on this project.
(ex 2)
Me, after first date heading home: We had such a great chat, we should meet up again sometime!
I'm opening the possibility of one, and the plus is a question mark. Does this mean I want to see them twice after the first date? Maybe? Do I want to date them forever and seal the deal? Well, I don't know that for sure. What I do know is that I want to see them at least once. (you might say this is really a rejection, which is fair. But if you take the statement at point blank, literally, that's what this means)
And so it goes. The "some" is a blanket statement that's ambiguous enough that there's a lot of room for interpretation, but it's not infinite. But the lower limit is also thankfully low enough that this 1 amazing student gets their shine and the other students aren't embarrassed, and that I don't get rocked by my mom for not doing work on my final project, and that I get to leave the door open for romance without locking in 2+ dates or a marriage. Does this make me a liar? Thankfully no. Why? Because the baseline is 1 :)
Now if I said maybe for all of these, and used less definitive words, does that change the rule of 1+? No, but we are moving to hypotheticals. So in this hypothetical group, we have at least 1. It doesn't matter whether it's some can or some might, the some just means the 1+ and the can or might changes how we write and interpret the rules after. (I might have done some work =work 1+or haven't worked 1+, maybe we'll each other sometime = will see 1+ or /will see 1+, some students might be able to read = students that can read --> 1+ or /1+) I hope this helps!
@new_cheese I appreciate you writing all of this, but here's the problem with what you're saying:
First, you said "I think you're right in just translating it to at least one. If it's helpful, with "some" I think of it as a group of something. The group will have more than one member, so it will always be plural, but it's a singular group. So this group of students, some of them read. The them refers to the group of students because when it comes to a group of blank, you can to match the verb to the plural blank depending on the context (subject-verb agreement is wild with this), but you are talking about a singular entity."
But your explanation of subject-verb assignment is slightly wrong. The pronoun-verb pair of "them read" in your example does not refer to "group." It refers to "students." If you wanted to refer to the group, you'd use "it." But it's improper to refer to a group as being able to read since it is an inanimate representation or label for what is contained within it, so we say that the students can.
Let's say I have two groups of birds. The first group of birds is labeled "B" because they are blue. The second group of birds is "R" because they are "red."
The Group IS R or you might even say the second group IS red. But the birds "are" red. This is standardized for American English, though to be fair: if the LSAT were administered in England, you'd be correct that either is acceptable. However, that still would not change what's incorrect about this lesson, overall. And I'll demonstrate using your examples:
In your dating example, you say "We should meet up again sometime!" You use the collective, vague "sometime" to indicate meeting at some unspecified point in the future (different from "some time," btw, which would indicate that you want to meet up over an unspecified period or for an unspecified duration). If you had said "I want to go on some more dates with you," or "I hope we have "some" more dates," you're starting off with the plural, which indicates that you want at least two more dates. Which may come off as kind of thirsty, but hey, it doesn't take all day to recognize sunshine, so do you.
Likewise, you said "I've done some work." You used the collective, ambiguous "some work" because it does not necessarily indicate completion of even a single task.
"Have you started changing your oil yet?"
I went outside and started to halfway jack the car up in the driveway, which is half of the first step completed so...
"I've done some work on it..." The ambiguity, again, places the sentence into a state of "unreality" and allows for subjunctive phrasing, in which you don't know how much is done. There's only a single task and you've only complete half of the first step, yet "some work" is true. Likewise if the task is "homework" and you've opened your book and read the first word, you've done "Some work" without even completing a single task. You might have 20 tasks to do or just one. You don't need to complete a task in order for it to be true, so this is not even "1+," it is "x>0."
In your other example, which is essentially the same as the one that I was complaining about, the statement is simply false. As soon as you say "some of my students can" you're pluralizing it. The plurality of "some" specifically depends on the plurality/collectivity/singularness of the noun-verb agreement. It is collective or plural, depending on what follows.
For instance: If you say "Some student" can read, you are indicating that a single student can read, and the only question is which one.
If you say I've completed "some task" toward completing your homework, you've done exactly one thing, and you're being weirdly vague about what that task is. Maybe you've only sharpened your pencil. I don't know. But "Some tasks" would mean that you've completed multiple tasks.
Do you see how you changed your sentence structure to collective/ambiguous in your examples, rather than the plural example given in the lesson, which you repurposed fantastically? Whenever we use the definitive plural conjugation of a verb, it has to be x>1. The teacher in your example was simply saying something (s)he knew to be false in order to save face for the children.
@CallMeEric I see what you're saying. I picked ambiguous examples on purpose to illustrate the concept that some is at least one since you mentioned sentence structure and grammar. You could rewrite the sentences to be clearer, but that's not the point of the sentences for this exercise. I'm going to disagree with you about some work being x>0, the some work being no work feels like an assumption outside of the words being said relying on experiences where people say that as a way to avoid saying they didn't do anything. But the point of the test is to rely on the words as given and assume they are true. It's a difficult thing to illustrate, given how we intuitively understand some, so if it didn't help, that's on me. I just thought having some examples tied to real situations would help you grasp the concept that some could mean at least one. The reality being, the LSAT is particular, and for the sake of this test, some means at least one, whether we like it or not, or grammatically, whether that clicks for us or not. Whether assuming some means 2 will affect you on the test into making false assumptions or not is something you'll have to figure out, but quite frankly, that's not an assumption I want to make. There's a lot the test does that I think is a wild take on English, but it's a test I want to do well on, so I toss the rules out that I know. So to answer the original question, instead of examples, I think it's just a thing you'll have to figure out on your own as you build a sense of what the testers want you to do. JY said grammar sucks, but I think you've got a great handle on that end. It's just the building of a sense that's left. Wishing you the best, sorry I couldn't help more. I'm sure you'll figure it out-- when you do, would love to hear back. Cheers mate!
@new_cheese Oh, don't be sorry. It's not your job to make me understand it differently. I've determined that "Some>=1" is a rule I'll just have to remember. As for "some" being less than one, I wasn't making an assumption about your homework example, I was just expanding on it to show how some could possibly be less than one when using a collective term like "work" that can't always be easily quantified with integers. "I've done some work" towards making a sandwich means that you haven't necessarily finished making the whole sandwich, so it could still be less than one when we're not dealing with integers, even though "some" work has, indeed been done.
Ugh... I hope there aren't a lot of other situations where grammar and LSAT logic disagree. I'd much rather comprehend than remember, but like you said, in this case I'll just have to remember this one rule that "some" can =1. Thanks for your efforts.
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.
omg, never in a million years could I have guessed that SOME was inclusive of ALL. Lots of unlearning to do ig.
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?
If "some" can extend to the entire set, wont it be subsuming the set and therefore create a superset - subset relationship?
A bit confusing, "some" would refer to a portion. So why not just say "all" ? I would have guessed "most students" for any thing above 10 since it would be half of Mrs. Stoops' class. So "some" is equal to "all"?
@VividQuenchingGift Logic is its own language. In English, some refers to a portion. In logic, some means 'at least 1.' This is true outside of the LSAT and if you take a Logic [especially Symbolic Logic] class at any point that is not related to the LSAT you will see that this rule is important when you get into more complex concepts.
Understanding the concept of 'some' as a range is incredibly important when using the language of Logic, because when we see 'some' we have to be able to hold in our minds the idea that it is anywhere between 'at least 1' and 'all.' A lot of the times we will never know what specific number 'some' represents, we have to train our minds to be okay with the idea of the range of some, which is the concept that is introduced in this video.
Some is not all. Some is at least 1 and can include as many as all. We do not know if it does. All is all, because the quantifier all lets us know for a FACT that everything in a set is included.
Some is possibly all, possibly most, possibly least, and at least 1. Some is not all, because we do not know what amount of a set is included.
--------------------------------------------
I'll use the example to try and make it even clearer:
There are 20 kids in Mrs. Troop's class. Some of the kids in Mrs. Troop's class can read.
So, first we know that Some = At least 1
So, if one kid in Mrs. Troop's class can read, then this logic is valid.
If 5 kids in Mrs. Troop's class can read, the logic is valid.
If 18 kids in Mrs. Troop's class can read, the logic is valid.
If 20 kids in Mrs. Troop's class can read, the logic is valid.
But then we get the question, if all 20 kids can read, why don't we use the quantifier All?
Because we don't know which one is true. When we see the quantifier some we must acknowledge that it exists as a Range.
Anything in the range of 1-20 (for this specific example) could make this statement logically valid. We don't know if some means 6 or some means 20. We just know that some means at least 1.
Since we don't know which one is true, then we can say that any are true, so we can say that all are true.
ANY number between 1 and 20 makes this a logically valid argument.
We do not have certainty that 20 kids can read. 20 kids could read, and that would satisfy the terms for logical validity, but 3 kids could read and that would also satisfy the terms for logical validity in this example.
Since we don't have certainty, we're not going to use All, but since there is the possibility, we use Some.
This is why Some can be as many as all.
--------------------------------------------
Also, I learned the concept of 'some is at least 1' in a logic class a while ago and I will say that all of the mental gymnastics that people try to do to escape from the fact that in Logic "some is at least 1" is just going to be confusing and not amount to anything.
Just do your best to accept it, get comfortable with the idea, and you'll be fine :)
@jordkerns this was super helpful in tying it all together! thanks!
@jordkerns what about the concept that "Students" is plural, and so, must be more than one? How do you wrap your head around that, because I'm trying to and can't.
@CallMeEric I would always include the modifier when assessing my subject. In this example I would always think of it as 'some students' not just 'students.' This will remind you that the modifier 'some' is what is important to this question -- not the word students. The question can say 'some students can read,' 'some apples are sweet,' 'some dogs are small," and in every case [some = at least one] and so each different version could be satisfied by one student reading, one apple being sweet, or one dog being small. It is the modifier that is relevant.
Also, like I mentioned above -- Logic and English are two different languages. In English, the word students is plural and thus demands that more than one student be able to read. In Logic the modifier Some overrides the plurality of the word students. In the language of logic the quantifier 'Some' always means at least one, nothing more, nothing less.
There are certain elements of the language of logic that do not have a 'comfortable' explanation when compared to the rules of the language of English. The rule that 'some equals at least one' is one of them. Memorize the rule and accept that (when using the language of Logic) it just is what it is and this type of problem becomes much easier. Hope this helps :)
So does some also equate to most? If some can include "all" doesn't most also include "all?"
Are we sure that some csn mean all? I thought some is a portion of a whole.
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
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
Some heavily implies more than one. I don't know a single context where you'd use "some" to describe only 1 of something.
That is because in day-to-day conversations in English, we often use "some" to mean "several" or "a few." People, including myself, use some to literally always mean more than one. However, some must include at least one. On the LSAT, they're not necessarily saying that there is only one of something, but in the example, it must be true that at least one student can read. I think JY really wants to emphasize that "some" is a range that must include at least one but can include up to all. I also think LSAT wants to ensure you know the difference between some, most, and all as their ranges differ. Overall, LSAT lingo /= day-to-day normal English lol. Hope this helps clear it up!
So it’s just 1-100% is Some and 51%-100% is Most?
yes
It could be.
On a range of 0-100, it could cover up to 51 or all the way up to 100. It could.
Why is it that all 20 could be true if it isn't saying that ALL students can read but only some?
because it only stated "some" and in this case we know that that can start with at least one and can also be all without being invalid.
I think some students should be interpreted to mean more than one so the lower band should actually be 2 and not one because one only means "one student" and yet some students (being in plural) means more than one.
that is how we use it in normal language, but with normal language we make mistakes. The actual meaning of the word 'some' aligns with the logical interpretation.
Here is a definition from the internet:
1. an unspecified number or amount of people or things
2. at least a small amount or number of people or things
'1' is both a small amount and an amount of some given thing, however 0 is not.
I don't think the issue is with the word 'some', it is with the word 'students'. By saying 'students', which is plural, wouldn't that require that it's referring to more than one student?
So basically "some" is inclusionary since the lower bound begins at one and there is no upper range. So with this its like there is no limit? or is the limit the number that was placed? for example the 20 students?