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 understand how most and some can mean all, but my concern is this: one common trap on the lsat is 'beyond the scope of the argument', which often includes statements that cant be inferred from the text. Often the indicator is that it will say "all" or make an incorrect overgeneralization. How would understanding some and most in this way help at all with the lsat?
Y'all ever heard the joke "I don't smoke any more, but I ain't smoking any less, neither?" That's the kind of "smart-alecky" answer that this type of logic language is talking about.
Most of my dogs are animals. All of them are, too. But that includes most, so most is accurate. Same with some. BUT, most is always at least half.
In an LSAT book I read it states that "some" means 1%-50% of whatever we're taking about because once its over 50% then it becomes "most" it can not mean "some" anymore. But here J.Y says that "some" can mean 1%-100%. So what should I believe more when the LSAT says "most" vs "some" or is there really no difference as long as I know most means 51%-100% or am I just overcomplicating things?
Which lsat book is it? I would just go with the 7sage approach, because I feel it is more close to the actual logic. However, you will often find implicit or explicit bounds on "some" or "most" that further clarify the meaning. In those cases, as is described in the video, defer to the passage.
Could someone please help me wrap my head around the lawgic behind this sentence... "We will meet our environmental goals only if most cars become electric."?
I am currently reading it as:
Meet Enviro Goals → most cars become electric
Is this right? Also if anyone could please better explain what he means here:
What if all cars became electric? No. Clearly, if all cars became electric, that would be just fine. That would not constitute a failure of the necessary condition because that usage of "most" required us to understand that it could include "all."
What if all cars became electric? No. Clearly, if all cars became electric, that would be just fine. That would not constitute a failure of the necessary condition because that usage of “most” required us to understand that it could include “all.”
Here, he is pointing out a scenario in which "most" does not exclude all. In this case, if when we said "most" we excluded "all" (in other words, we meant "most but not all"), and we would only meet our environmental goals if "most cars" became electric, then by "all" cars becoming electric we would not meet our environmental goals.
However, if we understand that "most" can also include "all", then we can understand that most, including all cars being electric will help will allow us to meet our environmental goals.
No because they aren't the same as conditional relationships where a contrapositive provides a valid conclusion too. You cannot take the contrapositive of a some or most relationship because the relationships do not have a reversed and negated equivalent in Lawgic. As in the Most cats are pets and Most pets are cats example, the first is signified as C‑m→P because it is logically valid to conclude that a cat is a pet and more often than not, cats are kept as pets rather than being feral. The opposite of that P‑m→C means that when looking at the world of pets, most of them are cats, but we know that's not true. What about dogs, birds, fish, horses, etc.? Negating a most relationship doesn't fully make sense as "not most" because it changes the entire meaning of the quantifier.
"It's the same distinction as between "Most cats are pets" (C —m→ P) versus "Most pets are cats" (P —m→ C)". I would appreciate if anyone could please provide an insight on how these two items are different. My understanding is, is that they mean the same thing. Thanks.
For C‑m→P, it says "most cats are pets." Ok so think about the cats you know. You have some stray cats, of course, but we can say that most of the cats in the world are pets. That sounds pretty right.
Now let's use P ‑m→ C, "most pets are cats." Ok, so we can have dogs for pets, cats, turtles, fish, geckos, you get the idea. Now is it true that most pets are cats? Not as much.
its reversing a whole (pet) with a specific (cat). "some" is ambiguous enough that is can be used both ways, but "most" has stricter boundaries that we cannot simply reverse the two to mean the same.
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.
21 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
I understand how most and some can mean all, but my concern is this: one common trap on the lsat is 'beyond the scope of the argument', which often includes statements that cant be inferred from the text. Often the indicator is that it will say "all" or make an incorrect overgeneralization. How would understanding some and most in this way help at all with the lsat?
Y'all ever heard the joke "I don't smoke any more, but I ain't smoking any less, neither?" That's the kind of "smart-alecky" answer that this type of logic language is talking about.
Most of my dogs are animals. All of them are, too. But that includes most, so most is accurate. Same with some. BUT, most is always at least half.
Most and Some having a possibility of meaning ALL is giving me the heebie jeebies
In an LSAT book I read it states that "some" means 1%-50% of whatever we're taking about because once its over 50% then it becomes "most" it can not mean "some" anymore. But here J.Y says that "some" can mean 1%-100%. So what should I believe more when the LSAT says "most" vs "some" or is there really no difference as long as I know most means 51%-100% or am I just overcomplicating things?
Which lsat book is it? I would just go with the 7sage approach, because I feel it is more close to the actual logic. However, you will often find implicit or explicit bounds on "some" or "most" that further clarify the meaning. In those cases, as is described in the video, defer to the passage.
Wait so ‘some’ and ‘Most’ can technically be 100% (all)?
yes ! according to the LSAT language
I am confused about how does "Mos" exclude "all"? In what circumstances?
I'm assuming the same way that it can be excluded in the "some" lesson. Meaning they'll tell you if it's not all.
So phrased like
"Most, but not all students in Mrs. Stoops class can read."
So I guess unless they explicitly mention it's not all we should assume the lower bound is half plus one and the upper bound is all.
Makes sense. Thank you!
Could someone please help me wrap my head around the lawgic behind this sentence... "We will meet our environmental goals only if most cars become electric."?
I am currently reading it as:
Meet Enviro Goals → most cars become electric
Is this right? Also if anyone could please better explain what he means here:
What if all cars became electric? No. Clearly, if all cars became electric, that would be just fine. That would not constitute a failure of the necessary condition because that usage of "most" required us to understand that it could include "all."
#help pleaseeeee
What if all cars became electric? No. Clearly, if all cars became electric, that would be just fine. That would not constitute a failure of the necessary condition because that usage of “most” required us to understand that it could include “all.”
Here, he is pointing out a scenario in which "most" does not exclude all. In this case, if when we said "most" we excluded "all" (in other words, we meant "most but not all"), and we would only meet our environmental goals if "most cars" became electric, then by "all" cars becoming electric we would not meet our environmental goals.
However, if we understand that "most" can also include "all", then we can understand that most, including all cars being electric will help will allow us to meet our environmental goals.
"My god the horror" lol
"...the bare minimum needed to satisfy 'most' [is more than half]."
Shouldn't the first flowchart, not include "at least half" under "most --> implies"?
Ex, in the second flowchart, it states "must be false" --> "ten or fewer students can read." Ten is at least half of the 20 of Mrs. Stoops' students.
Confirming that most does need to be more than half.
#feedback
Can most be read as a group 1 indicator, in that whatever idea follows it is the sufficient condition?
#help (Added by Admin)
No because they aren't the same as conditional relationships where a contrapositive provides a valid conclusion too. You cannot take the contrapositive of a some or most relationship because the relationships do not have a reversed and negated equivalent in Lawgic. As in the Most cats are pets and Most pets are cats example, the first is signified as C‑m→P because it is logically valid to conclude that a cat is a pet and more often than not, cats are kept as pets rather than being feral. The opposite of that P‑m→C means that when looking at the world of pets, most of them are cats, but we know that's not true. What about dogs, birds, fish, horses, etc.? Negating a most relationship doesn't fully make sense as "not most" because it changes the entire meaning of the quantifier.
"It's the same distinction as between "Most cats are pets" (C —m→ P) versus "Most pets are cats" (P —m→ C)". I would appreciate if anyone could please provide an insight on how these two items are different. My understanding is, is that they mean the same thing. Thanks.
For C‑m→P, it says "most cats are pets." Ok so think about the cats you know. You have some stray cats, of course, but we can say that most of the cats in the world are pets. That sounds pretty right.
Now let's use P ‑m→ C, "most pets are cats." Ok, so we can have dogs for pets, cats, turtles, fish, geckos, you get the idea. Now is it true that most pets are cats? Not as much.
These two statements are different.
its reversing a whole (pet) with a specific (cat). "some" is ambiguous enough that is can be used both ways, but "most" has stricter boundaries that we cannot simply reverse the two to mean the same.
Thx for your time and help. Have a great day!