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'm imagining a sentence like "the majority of people believe x, but the overwhelming majority believe y." Is it reasonable to assume people who believe y is greater than people believe x?
This clearly depends on context. In some situations (like elections that are almost always 51% to 49%) 60% would be considered an overwhelming majority.
"most" = more than half or 50%+1. If "overwhelming majority" = more than "most. Therefore, "overwhelming majority" > (50% +1). According to the example in the video, an "overwhelming majority" could be 52% since its more than "most" which is 51%.
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?
@madelynroseandrews An overwhelming majority agreed with you. Heck, everyone agreed with you. But, that includes overwhelming majority, so to say an overwhelming majority agreed is true, too. If he said all, that's more exact and there's no room for me to be a smart-ass. That's the way I look at it anyway
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").
I think that it is correct as stated since the quantifier "overwhelming majority" raises the floor in comparison to the quantifier "most". In the same way that it must be true that "most" requires more than half, "overwhelming majority" requires at least 60-70%, and thus those must be true, whereas 71-100% could be true, if I'm understanding correctly.
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
The comments on the "some" and "most" videos should make perfectly clear why you're wrong on that. LSAT quantifiers are not intuitive. If it's easy for you, great, move along quicker. Others might appreciate everything being broken down.
It is neither unnecessary nor disparaging because when you're actually taking the questions, especially under the gun of time constraints during the real exam or timed PTs, then it's pretty easy to glaze over and accidentally view majority/most and overwhelming majority as being the same, which can actually be a major trap.
Imagine you're given a question with a set of quantifier premises and you set up your lawgic diagrams correctly and then you find out that "most" is a valid premise
But you select an answer that says "overwhelming majority" as the valid premise
But this is extrapolation from most and therefore not valid!
it's not disparaging in the slightest, I'm sure there are plenty of students that found this helpful...and in any case you can literally just skip the lesson..it takes like a second to do so anyway.
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.
It's important to note in the lesson that "simple majority" is distinct from "overwhelming majority". The LSAT will make this distinction on the test.
You're right in that it's ambiguous and dependent on interpretation. But the LSAT will make you interpret. I've seen questions on the same test where one will refer to a "majority" and another question will refer to an "overwhelming majority". In practically every question that uses the latter, the statement is trying as hard as it can to reach "every" without officially getting there. The test will expect you to recognize this.
Put another way: "majority" is a clear measure: more than half. A "majority" can be 51% all the way up to 100%. An "overwhelming majority" is not a clear measurement, but you have to assume it's a lot higher than 51%.
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.
32 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'm imagining a sentence like "the majority of people believe x, but the overwhelming majority believe y." Is it reasonable to assume people who believe y is greater than people believe x?
That ambiguity sure does get weaponized by politicians
@HenryLehmann HAHAHA
This clearly depends on context. In some situations (like elections that are almost always 51% to 49%) 60% would be considered an overwhelming majority.
"most" = more than half or 50%+1. If "overwhelming majority" = more than "most. Therefore, "overwhelming majority" > (50% +1). According to the example in the video, an "overwhelming majority" could be 52% since its more than "most" which is 51%.
Could overwhelming majority mean all like some and most and majority?
most means majority. So, if most is anything over half to all, then overwhelming majority would be a larger version of most to all.
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?
@madelynroseandrews An overwhelming majority agreed with you. Heck, everyone agreed with you. But, that includes overwhelming majority, so to say an overwhelming majority agreed is true, too. If he said all, that's more exact and there's no room for me to be a smart-ass. That's the way I look at it anyway
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?
I believe It stays the same as Most.
It just raises the floor.
That's what I was thinking - thank you!
#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.
I think that it is correct as stated since the quantifier "overwhelming majority" raises the floor in comparison to the quantifier "most". In the same way that it must be true that "most" requires more than half, "overwhelming majority" requires at least 60-70%, and thus those must be true, whereas 71-100% could be true, if I'm understanding correctly.
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
The comments on the "some" and "most" videos should make perfectly clear why you're wrong on that. LSAT quantifiers are not intuitive. If it's easy for you, great, move along quicker. Others might appreciate everything being broken down.
It is neither unnecessary nor disparaging because when you're actually taking the questions, especially under the gun of time constraints during the real exam or timed PTs, then it's pretty easy to glaze over and accidentally view majority/most and overwhelming majority as being the same, which can actually be a major trap.
Imagine you're given a question with a set of quantifier premises and you set up your lawgic diagrams correctly and then you find out that "most" is a valid premise
But you select an answer that says "overwhelming majority" as the valid premise
But this is extrapolation from most and therefore not valid!
it's not disparaging in the slightest, I'm sure there are plenty of students that found this helpful...and in any case you can literally just skip the lesson..it takes like a second to do so anyway.
"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?
I would not read "majority" and "overwhelming majority" as excluding the possibility of all.
Thank you!
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
Context will help with these sentences on the LSAT, but just these sentences alone it makes sense to not pay too much mind to the "modifiers".
However, with J.Y.'s point of this example is that with the modifier of "overwhelmingly most" the object is going to be much closer to 100% than 50%.
Does that make more sense?
Replying for others who will come across this:
It's important to note in the lesson that "simple majority" is distinct from "overwhelming majority". The LSAT will make this distinction on the test.
You're right in that it's ambiguous and dependent on interpretation. But the LSAT will make you interpret. I've seen questions on the same test where one will refer to a "majority" and another question will refer to an "overwhelming majority". In practically every question that uses the latter, the statement is trying as hard as it can to reach "every" without officially getting there. The test will expect you to recognize this.
Put another way: "majority" is a clear measure: more than half. A "majority" can be 51% all the way up to 100%. An "overwhelming majority" is not a clear measurement, but you have to assume it's a lot higher than 51%.
Well said!