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".
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.
(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)
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?
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"?
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
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.
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?
Hopefully I get some of the questions right on the LSAT.
19
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!
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.
88 comments
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🥀
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.
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 ?
Is "several" to be understood in the same way as "some"? i.e., at least one, could be up to all/100%?
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?
How is 'some' inclusive of ALL? Wouldnt it say 'all' if it included everyone in the sample? Im confused
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.
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"?
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
Shouldn't the upper limit of some be all minus 1? Some implies a portion (regardless of how large the portion) but not all.
Some heavily implies more than one. I don't know a single context where you'd use "some" to describe only 1 of something.
So it’s just 1-100% is Some and 51%-100% is Most?
Why is it that all 20 could be true if it isn't saying that ALL students can read but only some?
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.
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?
Hopefully I get some of the questions right on the LSAT.