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
since some can imply all, can a stimulus that says "some" have the correct answer choice be "all" because in further lesson we learn that we can only work our way down in implication like all can imply most and most can imply some. What do you mean by some can include all, does that mean the answer choice can have "all" in a "some" stimulus. thank you
What I interpreted it as and this may be incorrect, but when some could be referring to all it depends on the context of the situation. For example, if I were to say some students can read and then I said could it be true that all students in Mr Cooper's class can read the answer can be correct because it depends on the context you are using the word. While some doesn't mean all, we can make it mean all dependent on the context.
I think that some can imply all for translation purposes which may help to prephrase...but I do not think that it should be assumed to be all if some is the quantifier. If it says all in the stimulus, it means all. if it says some it could be all but does not guarantee all. Some represents a range from at least 1 to all, while all is the entire set. It is challenging I agree.
#feedback It's a super minuscule detail, but it says, "We groups "all" into group 1." Instead, it should be "We group "all" into group 1" without the "s." Unless my grammar is way off, in which case I will be revisiting my elementary school notes on reading and writing lol
"All" could also be bidirectional, right? All members of a subset are members of the superset. Just as when two sets are identically sized/overlapping, all of the members of one set are members of the other as well.
So could we express some "all" relationships as A B ? If it's appropriate? Or does this open me to a trap I'm missing.
I'm pretty sure it would have to be stated explicitly otherwise it is unidirectional.
All cats are pets (C → P) does not mean all pets are cats (P → C)
But if it says "all cats are pets AND all pets are cats" then it would be bidirectional, but I have yet to see any prompt on any LSAT question where this sort of relationship exists...
I dont believe so. Like you pointed out with bringing in subet and superset logic, the "all" relationship is similar to a sufficient and necessary relationship (we even use the same diagram in lawgic). Being a member of A is sufficient to know it also has membership with B & being a member of B is necessary to being a member of A. We also know based on the contrapositive that if there is no membership in B it is impossible to be a member of A. But based on the information given, we dont know for certain that all B's are also A's.
Well, think about the statement: All dogs are mammals. Yet, the statement "All mammals are dogs" is incorrect because there are other types of mammals. So I don't think "all" could be bidirectional. Maybe I am wrong in my train of thought.
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.
20 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
finally
so how do we know whether all is implying intersection or group 1 suffient?
if only it were "all" this easy
this is probably the most straight forward lesson i have encountered thus far.
All means all, and that's all that all means.
lol typo, "we groups" in the second paragraph
since some can imply all, can a stimulus that says "some" have the correct answer choice be "all" because in further lesson we learn that we can only work our way down in implication like all can imply most and most can imply some. What do you mean by some can include all, does that mean the answer choice can have "all" in a "some" stimulus. thank you
What I interpreted it as and this may be incorrect, but when some could be referring to all it depends on the context of the situation. For example, if I were to say some students can read and then I said could it be true that all students in Mr Cooper's class can read the answer can be correct because it depends on the context you are using the word. While some doesn't mean all, we can make it mean all dependent on the context.
I think that some can imply all for translation purposes which may help to prephrase...but I do not think that it should be assumed to be all if some is the quantifier. If it says all in the stimulus, it means all. if it says some it could be all but does not guarantee all. Some represents a range from at least 1 to all, while all is the entire set. It is challenging I agree.
Does "all" always imply a conditional relationship?
all means all
#feedback It's a super minuscule detail, but it says, "We groups "all" into group 1." Instead, it should be "We group "all" into group 1" without the "s." Unless my grammar is way off, in which case I will be revisiting my elementary school notes on reading and writing lol
Ignore my comment. Someone had already mentioned it. Just hasn't been fixed yet.
"All" could also be bidirectional, right? All members of a subset are members of the superset. Just as when two sets are identically sized/overlapping, all of the members of one set are members of the other as well.
So could we express some "all" relationships as A B ? If it's appropriate? Or does this open me to a trap I'm missing.
I'm pretty sure it would have to be stated explicitly otherwise it is unidirectional.
All cats are pets (C → P) does not mean all pets are cats (P → C)
But if it says "all cats are pets AND all pets are cats" then it would be bidirectional, but I have yet to see any prompt on any LSAT question where this sort of relationship exists...
A → B.
I dont believe so. Like you pointed out with bringing in subet and superset logic, the "all" relationship is similar to a sufficient and necessary relationship (we even use the same diagram in lawgic). Being a member of A is sufficient to know it also has membership with B & being a member of B is necessary to being a member of A. We also know based on the contrapositive that if there is no membership in B it is impossible to be a member of A. But based on the information given, we dont know for certain that all B's are also A's.
Well, think about the statement: All dogs are mammals. Yet, the statement "All mammals are dogs" is incorrect because there are other types of mammals. So I don't think "all" could be bidirectional. Maybe I am wrong in my train of thought.