i get how some can mean all, but how does this help with lsat questions. I feel like from my limited experience, rarely are lsat answers with 'All' correct because they are too extreme.
"Some" covers an intersect and that's why it can go both ways.
Some cats are pets and Some pets are cats
These mean the same thing because they both have the same intersection in the middle where pets and cats overlap. Once you are in that intersection part in the middle you are part of both groups so it doesn't matter.
The word some means "at least one" so once I am in that middle group then yah, at least one cat is a pet, and at least one pet is a cat. Some can include all, sure. BUT it doesn't have to. All some has to do is mean "At least one"
Ex. I am a cat who is also a pet. I am in that middle intersection group so that means I can also say I am a pet who is a cat. On the flip lets pretend I am not a cat, but I am a pet. This means I can't be part of the that intersection in the middle. I am only part of the "pets" circle.
When you break down the Stoops's sentence, it would be better not to use "students" as one of the main concepts, since when you bring it back together students is in both concepts. It would be better to break that first main concept into "Mrs. Stoops's class."
this might be answered in a future lesson, but i'm just curious. are there situations where "some" means "all" like the previous lesson said, and are used qualifiers as a sufficient condition? i know the example here is "some people who can read are students in the class, some students in the class are people who can read," but if we were provided more context before or after that statement that would include "all" as the meaning of "some" students in the class (the meaning being "all students can read in the class"), are there cases that the LSAT expects you to use this as a sufficient condition?
I can't figure out if this is more or less intuitive than just using (∃x) in the usual language of logic. Learning predicate logic is very different than what I'm learning here on 7sage.
If we used it in this class example it would be like:
S = Stoop's class
R = predicate (can read)
∃x = what is called the "existential quantifier"
(∃r)[Sr]
(∃r)[Sr] is true when Sr is true for at least one value of r
I'm not understanding how we introduce a biconditional symbol in there for this lesson.
I am still confused as to why the arrow can be in both directions. The example given is that some cats can be pets. But isn't cat a subset of pets? Isn't pets the larger (necessary) condition in order for cats to be part of it? Just like the example given earlier in the course where cats --> mammals? Could someone please explain and try to clarify the difference for me because I see it as the same thing. Thank you
What does "Because if there are some students in Mrs. Stoops' class who can read, then there must be some students who can read in Mrs. Stoops' class." mean?
Does the translation to Lawgic really matter on questions that require us to take just over a minute to answer? It seems like while training ourselves to translate to Lawgic is taking away the ability to do this kind of translation in our head without having to learn extra formatting.
could we translate this to Lawgic to "there exists at least one student in Ms. Stoops' class who can read" instead? seems more intuitive #help#feedback
Why isn't translating to the contrapositive a step in the lawgic translation process for this? Is it not needed?
#help (Added by Admin)
2
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.
34 comments
I wonder where he is going with this lesson
i get how some can mean all, but how does this help with lsat questions. I feel like from my limited experience, rarely are lsat answers with 'All' correct because they are too extreme.
"Some" covers an intersect and that's why it can go both ways.
Some cats are pets and Some pets are cats
These mean the same thing because they both have the same intersection in the middle where pets and cats overlap. Once you are in that intersection part in the middle you are part of both groups so it doesn't matter.
The word some means "at least one" so once I am in that middle group then yah, at least one cat is a pet, and at least one pet is a cat. Some can include all, sure. BUT it doesn't have to. All some has to do is mean "At least one"
Ex. I am a cat who is also a pet. I am in that middle intersection group so that means I can also say I am a pet who is a cat. On the flip lets pretend I am not a cat, but I am a pet. This means I can't be part of the that intersection in the middle. I am only part of the "pets" circle.
Doess this apply to 'several' or 'many' or a few'?
#help
so i just want to be clear that this does not mean p>c as well as c>p
if it is a pet, then it is a cat,
if it is a cat, then it is a pet.
the <s> does not translate into if/then?
are there cats that are not pets?!
When you break down the Stoops's sentence, it would be better not to use "students" as one of the main concepts, since when you bring it back together students is in both concepts. It would be better to break that first main concept into "Mrs. Stoops's class."
Finally a lesson that's intuitive in my brain!
this might be answered in a future lesson, but i'm just curious. are there situations where "some" means "all" like the previous lesson said, and are used qualifiers as a sufficient condition? i know the example here is "some people who can read are students in the class, some students in the class are people who can read," but if we were provided more context before or after that statement that would include "all" as the meaning of "some" students in the class (the meaning being "all students can read in the class"), are there cases that the LSAT expects you to use this as a sufficient condition?
i hope this question makes sense!
I can't figure out if this is more or less intuitive than just using (∃x) in the usual language of logic. Learning predicate logic is very different than what I'm learning here on 7sage.
If we used it in this class example it would be like:
S = Stoop's class
R = predicate (can read)
∃x = what is called the "existential quantifier"
(∃r)[Sr]
(∃r)[Sr] is true when Sr is true for at least one value of r
I'm not understanding how we introduce a biconditional symbol in there for this lesson.
I am still confused as to why the arrow can be in both directions. The example given is that some cats can be pets. But isn't cat a subset of pets? Isn't pets the larger (necessary) condition in order for cats to be part of it? Just like the example given earlier in the course where cats --> mammals? Could someone please explain and try to clarify the difference for me because I see it as the same thing. Thank you
#help
What does "Because if there are some students in Mrs. Stoops' class who can read, then there must be some students who can read in Mrs. Stoops' class." mean?
Should it say "can't" instead of can twice??
Does the translation to Lawgic really matter on questions that require us to take just over a minute to answer? It seems like while training ourselves to translate to Lawgic is taking away the ability to do this kind of translation in our head without having to learn extra formatting.
do we need to really do the diagrams? asking because I can't imagine there being enough time for it on test day
could we translate this to Lawgic to "there exists at least one student in Ms. Stoops' class who can read" instead? seems more intuitive #help#feedback
Why isn't translating to the contrapositive a step in the lawgic translation process for this? Is it not needed?
#help (Added by Admin)