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 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.
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...
31 comments
All means all, and that's all that all means.
@dvo1d simply put
this is probably the most straight forward lesson i have encountered thus far.
@zee.marie The first time the time recommendation was literally less then what I needed lol
all means all
if only it were "all" this easy
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
@Elideebeep Thank you!
@MichelleEsquivel no problem!
@Elideebeep thank you for sharing :)
@8M_M8 sure thing!
@summeraaallen all is all to all
easiest 7sage lesson btw
@mutayeb agreed
so how do we know whether all is implying intersection or group 1 suffient?
finally
Yo guys, I'm having a very hard time comprehending this part of the curriculum... I don't know if this is the career for me 😔
What if the question is not all ? do we follow the group 3 rules?
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?
#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 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.
A → B.
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...