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
"That's why you cannot "take a contrapositive" of a "most" claim" : then what about the question about most students who got higher than a B- question?
most fruity things are tasty fruity ---m-->tasty /fruity--m->/tasty most non fruity things aren't tasty ( obviously this isn't true a lot of non fruity things are tasty)
There should be a way of reporting personal attacks with regards to users who cannot come up with positive counter arguments but must get personal about the opposing party's "self".
Recall the initial objection was to profane, obscene imagery & words not an attack against any one's person (my previous comment was never asking someone to "get over themselves" by implication accusing someone of being haughty or composed of other ad-hominem attacks).
p.s. it also was not asking others to get off of 7 sage, it was just an advocacy for professional speech which avoids profanity (scatological terms & memes that use profanities w/ Sam L Jackson etc. & other imagery & political insertions ) in pedagogy perhaps & avoiding obscene & profane or hostile content.
p.p.s. again I am not using profanities/obscenities to disqualify anyone else from the profession of attorney or of the law (as some subsequent commenters are doing i.e. engaging in personal attacks / ad hominem attacks). In some legal concentrations attorneys may interact with people who may resort to unprotected speech (and they are admirable), yet professionalism in academia and in the workplace (& in court) demands language unadorned by profanities & obscenities (obscenities & profanities are not protected speech).
p.p.p.s. this is an advocacy for righteousness, wholesomeness & virtuous, professional conduct. Lesser vices are not Ok perhaps if they are justified by abstinence from greater vices. It is perfectly understandable if someone has a condition where they are forced to err or are framed, however using "mf" and "f" words is thoroughly avoidable here & in the courtroom & in legal writing & in pedagogy & professional circles, perhaps.
Does a most relationship not imply a some relationship if flipped? So "Most otters are burglars" would be O --most--> B. If you flip it would it not be correct to say "Some burglars are otters" or B ←s→ O since the most implies overlap already?
some means at least one can be all or not, but has to be at least one. So, we need to attack what we know must be 100% true for negation. To negate (opposite) this you need to at none.
Some pets are dogs.
Negation: No pets are dogs.
Contrapositives keeps the meaning same by slapping negation to both sides of the sufficient necessary clauses, but keeps the meaning same. Lets try it with this example:
Some pets, then dogs.
P←s→D
Contrapositive: /P←s→/D
Some non-pets are not dogs. Does this mean the same thing as some pets are dogs? NO, it completely changes its meaning.
Why doesn't a contrapositive of "some statements" turn to "no statements" work? Since "some statements" have a lower bound of at least one why doesn't the negated statement become "not at least one or none"
Some Dogs are mean (AT LEAST one or more dog is mean)
You're thinking about the negation of a "some" statement. The negation of "some" is none. So if you want to say, "It's not true that some dogs are mean!" -- what you're saying is that NO dogs are mean.
But there's no contrapositive of a "some" in that "some dogs are mean" does not imply "some things that are not mean are not dogs" -- that isn't something that must be true based on "some dogs are mean."
In the previous lesson, it states that the quantifier "all" is synonymous with "any" and "every" and is translated the same as group 1 conditional indicators. All, any, and every can have a contrapositive because it is a valid conclusion to say not all, not any, and not every whereas flipping and negating a "some" relationship changes the entire meaning of the original relationship and what the subset and superset originally were.
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.
46 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
@Elideebeep I hope your pillows are always cold on both sides !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ratman23 hahahaha that made me smile, thank you!
you can gorb it on zeel
"That's why you cannot "take a contrapositive" of a "most" claim" : then what about the question about most students who got higher than a B- question?
PrepTest 141 - Section 2 - Question 21
@FultonHoover can u explain further
I'm very interested in these Gorb characters. I'll wait for the 7Sage extended universe.
Can we say that due to the contrapositive not being about the subject and predicate that this is incorrect as well?
most fruity things are tasty fruity ---m-->tasty /fruity--m->/tasty most non fruity things aren't tasty ( obviously this isn't true a lot of non fruity things are tasty)
[...]
I don't know how to include my explanation but it has to do with using sets and images which are not included.
https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVJMQNNdo=/?share_link_id=457400385324
@ArthurWhite obscene imagery? get over yourself
There should be a way of reporting personal attacks with regards to users who cannot come up with positive counter arguments but must get personal about the opposing party's "self".
Recall the initial objection was to profane, obscene imagery & words not an attack against any one's person (my previous comment was never asking someone to "get over themselves" by implication accusing someone of being haughty or composed of other ad-hominem attacks).
p.s. it also was not asking others to get off of 7 sage, it was just an advocacy for professional speech which avoids profanity (scatological terms & memes that use profanities w/ Sam L Jackson etc. & other imagery & political insertions ) in pedagogy perhaps & avoiding obscene & profane or hostile content.
p.p.s. again I am not using profanities/obscenities to disqualify anyone else from the profession of attorney or of the law (as some subsequent commenters are doing i.e. engaging in personal attacks / ad hominem attacks). In some legal concentrations attorneys may interact with people who may resort to unprotected speech (and they are admirable), yet professionalism in academia and in the workplace (& in court) demands language unadorned by profanities & obscenities (obscenities & profanities are not protected speech).
p.p.p.s. this is an advocacy for righteousness, wholesomeness & virtuous, professional conduct. Lesser vices are not Ok perhaps if they are justified by abstinence from greater vices. It is perfectly understandable if someone has a condition where they are forced to err or are framed, however using "mf" and "f" words is thoroughly avoidable here & in the courtroom & in legal writing & in pedagogy & professional circles, perhaps.
@ArthurWhite Perhaps 7Sage is not the right fit for you.
@ArthurWhite Oh man. If profanity upsets you, then you are going to have a tough time in the professional world and being an attorney.
All or None are absolute quantities, so those are bidirectional as well? Shouldnt those terms be included in some then?
So conditional statements with these quantifiable terms have no contrapositive. They might try to test us on this on the LSAT.
There are no contrapositives for ←s→ and ‑m→
@jolie.abdo32 bro just entirely summarized a 5min30sec video into 8 words.
Does a most relationship not imply a some relationship if flipped? So "Most otters are burglars" would be O --most--> B. If you flip it would it not be correct to say "Some burglars are otters" or B ←s→ O since the most implies overlap already?
I thought you could negate some with all or none
"all" or "none" is not the same as "some" or "most"
@KindlyQualifiedChampionship
some means at least one can be all or not, but has to be at least one. So, we need to attack what we know must be 100% true for negation. To negate (opposite) this you need to at none.
Some pets are dogs.
Negation: No pets are dogs.
Contrapositives keeps the meaning same by slapping negation to both sides of the sufficient necessary clauses, but keeps the meaning same. Lets try it with this example:
Some pets, then dogs.
P←s→D
Contrapositive: /P←s→/D
Some non-pets are not dogs. Does this mean the same thing as some pets are dogs? NO, it completely changes its meaning.
Why doesn't a contrapositive of "some statements" turn to "no statements" work? Since "some statements" have a lower bound of at least one why doesn't the negated statement become "not at least one or none"
Some Dogs are mean (AT LEAST one or more dog is mean)
why isn't the negated : no dog is mean
You're thinking about the negation of a "some" statement. The negation of "some" is none. So if you want to say, "It's not true that some dogs are mean!" -- what you're saying is that NO dogs are mean.
But there's no contrapositive of a "some" in that "some dogs are mean" does not imply "some things that are not mean are not dogs" -- that isn't something that must be true based on "some dogs are mean."
wouldnt a most claim also imply a some claim?
Most dogs are pets
This implies:
Some dogs are pets, which is reversable to some pets are dogs
Yep that's all true. The only thing that is not true is inferring that most pets are dogs when the premise is that most dogs are pets.
Because some could possibly still mean most or all.
This is the best lesson! I am jumping for joy!
¿sarcasm?
No I am actually happy. I was halfway through and was hoping they were not that many indicators for this section. It was a blessing in disguise.
anyone else feeling kind of daunted by just how much there is left in the CC? I'm not planning to test til january but still, woof.
same bro, i be stressing for the jan test and im not even at logic games yet
there is no longer a logic games section
i meant logic reasoning aha
#feedback I feel like the use of the word "nice" here is conflating negation with opposition
right?? i would think with negation it would just mean if there's no mean there's no dogs which would be true...i think
Logically equivalent would mean it has the same quantifier.
wouldn't it be inferred that
a--- Most ---> b
also says
B A
although i see it is not a contrapositive
Under review section what this law fix statement mean:
not imply /A ←s→ /B.
If we know that some As are B, that does not allow us to conclude that some Not-As are Not-Bs.
So it means that don't imply that some "not A" are "not B"
Because these statements don't tell us anything alone aside from the elements they explicitly mention
so if A ←s→ B does not imply /A ←s→ /B, can we claim that this B ←s→ A is true instead?
Yes, because claims with "some" can be reversibly read. I'll demonstrate it with an earlier example, "Some students in Mrs. Stoops' class can read" :
student ←s→ read : Some students in Mrs. Stoops' class can read.
read ←s→ student : Some students who can read are in Mrs. Stoops' class.
Both of these statements make sense. Hope this helps!
Can't you flip most A are B (A ‑m→ B) to some B are A (B ←s→ A)
you cannot "flip and negate" on the "some" or "most" arrows. "Flip and negate" (the contrapositive) is just for conditional claims.
What about the quantifier for every and any? We Can transulate the contra positive correct?
#help (Added by Admin)
In the previous lesson, it states that the quantifier "all" is synonymous with "any" and "every" and is translated the same as group 1 conditional indicators. All, any, and every can have a contrapositive because it is a valid conclusion to say not all, not any, and not every whereas flipping and negating a "some" relationship changes the entire meaning of the original relationship and what the subset and superset originally were.