I feel like 100% should be excluded from "overwhelming majority" because 100% would be unanimous. Am I being too pedantic? Doesn't a majority need a minority?
If overwhelming majority means more than most, and most means more than half, and more than half can be characterized as "50% + 1", then overwhelming majority simply means more than "50% + 1", which means "("50% + 1")+1", further meaning that an overwhelming majority cannot be exactly 50%+1, which would be a useful distinction in a situation such as the following: Premise 1. There are 100 councilors on the executive council. Premise 2. An overwhelming majority voted in favor of the new tax reform law. Valid inference: It MUST BE FALSE that 51 councilors voted for this proposal; Valid inference 2: IT MUST BE TRUE that at least 52 councilors voted for this proposal. This is one way in which I can think of that "overwhelming majority" quantifier can have a strict logical value for inferences. (strict logical value being independent from subjective interpretation concerning what constitutes "overwhelming majority").
Maybe when y'all finally add the videos, you can skip these sections completely and focus on the ones where people are struggling. Teaching 20+ year olds what "overwhelming majority" and "most" mean is not only unnecessary but disparaging
if relationships exist only with multiple variables. doesn't the term "majority" mandate the existence of a minority? so how can "all" possibly be included in the term "overwhelming majority"
Why are we saying overwhelming majority cannot be 53%? That feels inconsistent with all our previous lessons because it doesn't give a sharp lower bound. I understand any reasonable human would not think 53% is an "overwhelming majority" but a reasonable human could also think "most" is 70% minimum.
#help
6
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!
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.
26 comments
Could overwhelming majority mean all like some and most and majority?
I feel like 100% should be excluded from "overwhelming majority" because 100% would be unanimous. Am I being too pedantic? Doesn't a majority need a minority?
If overwhelming majority means more than most, and most means more than half, and more than half can be characterized as "50% + 1", then overwhelming majority simply means more than "50% + 1", which means "("50% + 1")+1", further meaning that an overwhelming majority cannot be exactly 50%+1, which would be a useful distinction in a situation such as the following: Premise 1. There are 100 councilors on the executive council. Premise 2. An overwhelming majority voted in favor of the new tax reform law. Valid inference: It MUST BE FALSE that 51 councilors voted for this proposal; Valid inference 2: IT MUST BE TRUE that at least 52 councilors voted for this proposal. This is one way in which I can think of that "overwhelming majority" quantifier can have a strict logical value for inferences. (strict logical value being independent from subjective interpretation concerning what constitutes "overwhelming majority").
overwhelming majority = more than most 51%-100%
most = more than some OR equal to some if some falls within 50%-100%
some = 1%-100%
- 52% - 99%
- Could even be 100%.. sure.
- Not common in the real LSAT. Thank goodness.
Does anyone know what symbol we should use to represent overwhelming majority in lawgic form?
#feedback Typo
The video says "must be true" for the 60% and 70% "legislators voted against," which I am pretty sure should still be classified as could be true.
Maybe when y'all finally add the videos, you can skip these sections completely and focus on the ones where people are struggling. Teaching 20+ year olds what "overwhelming majority" and "most" mean is not only unnecessary but disparaging
"overwhelming majority" means at minimum more than "most" (which is at least half)
"overwhelming majority" = 51% to 100%
Some: 1% - 100% (at least one, could be all)
Most: More than 50% - 100% (majority, could be all)
Few: 1% - 49% (a small number, less than half)
Half: Exactly 50%
Some Not: 0% - 99% (could be none, but not necessarily)
if relationships exist only with multiple variables. doesn't the term "majority" mandate the existence of a minority? so how can "all" possibly be included in the term "overwhelming majority"
#feedback just like "most" and "some", does "overwhelming majority" or "majority" also sometimes include an "all" interpretation?
finally a break from the hard to read stuff lol
Why are we saying overwhelming majority cannot be 53%? That feels inconsistent with all our previous lessons because it doesn't give a sharp lower bound. I understand any reasonable human would not think 53% is an "overwhelming majority" but a reasonable human could also think "most" is 70% minimum.
#help