Can we make the case that the lower bound for many, though unclear, must be at least greater than one (as opposed to some's "at least one"), since a single quantity of something cannot be "many"?
Think of It like this: Many can be many while still being below the threshold of most which is more than half. Many can not definitively mean most. However, Most means many because more than half is certainly many. The main difference is that many does not need to be half or more than half. Most relies on proportion while many does not.
Does not matter specifically how much many is. All that is important to know is that many is more than some. Some can be at least 1 so just think about many being a bit more than that. BUT DON'T THINK MANY = MOST. WE DON'T KNOW IF MANY IS MOST. What we do know is that many is more than some
"some birds migrate south." All that we can logically conclude from that statement is that at least 1 bird migrates south. If we say: "many birds migrate south." Then we can logically conclude that more than 1 bird migrates south. Essentially, on the LSAT you will only want to conclude the least amount of information possible. Dont try to figure out if all birds migrate south or if most birds migrate south because the only information that is gauranteed is what is stated in the sentence.
If the lower bound of "some" is just at least 1, and the lower bound of "many" is higher than "some," can we just say that the lower bound of "many" is 2?
Wait, in the context of many, 0, 1, and 2 birds count as must be false? I thought 2 birds would count as could be false? Should I treat "could be" as "must be" on the exam?
Here is what I am finding a good way to see it for those of you who are unclear:
If i said many students cheated on the test that could only mean 6/20 students which is still a lot in proportion of students who would cheat on any given test. On the contrary if I said most students cheated on the test then that must mean 11/20 cheated
I wonder if it would be helpful to point out that "many" can have either an absolute or relative frame of reference, depending on the speaker. As the description here states, "many" simply means a large number. Large numbers can be large in relative terms: 45 out of 50 people. Large numbers can also be large in absolute terms: 50,000 is a large number even when selected out of a pool of 2 million (in which case 50,000 does NOT meet the minimum 50% percentage threshold to qualify as most).
Since it's usually impossible to know without exact context precisely which meaning a speaker intends with "many", the safe assumption is that we don't actually know the lower % bound of "many" is. In other words, we can only safely assume that "many" means an absolute large number since absolute large numbers can still fail the "most" threshold.
Unfortunately from here, what constitutes an "absolute large number" is subjective. 50,000 literally does not receive numeric representation in some languages, since humans in unique environments may not have reason to conceptualize a number that large. Taking this example to the extreme: the number 2 will feel 100% bigger than 1 to a person who's only ever experienced 1 of everything. That person will consider 2 to be a large number and will describe pairs of things as "many."
As a result, "many" is only guaranteed a lower bound of "more than 1" and shares the same boundaries as "some".
I'm confused as to why many doesn't mean most. Many people (for example) means that its above a certain majority, though why isn't it so in the LSAT? And why does categorizing it with 'Some' doesn't cause issues in logic if it isn't a true definition?
This might be a silly question, but "several" was listed as a quantifier that indicates an intersectional relationship a few lessons ago but I don't see a lesson dedicated to it... Does anyone know if we should think of it as the same as "many"? And in that case, would it be considered equivalent to "some" as well?
how is "some cats like to drink milk" okay for "one cat likes to drink milk"?? the statement defines and establishes a plural "some cats" like to drink milk...... so does that not mean at least more than one has to like drinking milk?
2
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!
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.
59 comments
can we equate "overwhelming majority" to "most"?
Is it correct to understand that the upper bound for some, many, and most can all be the same?
Can we make the case that the lower bound for many, though unclear, must be at least greater than one (as opposed to some's "at least one"), since a single quantity of something cannot be "many"?
Is this even relevant im getting a headache
Think of It like this: Many can be many while still being below the threshold of most which is more than half. Many can not definitively mean most. However, Most means many because more than half is certainly many. The main difference is that many does not need to be half or more than half. Most relies on proportion while many does not.
Does not matter specifically how much many is. All that is important to know is that many is more than some. Some can be at least 1 so just think about many being a bit more than that. BUT DON'T THINK MANY = MOST. WE DON'T KNOW IF MANY IS MOST. What we do know is that many is more than some
"some birds migrate south." All that we can logically conclude from that statement is that at least 1 bird migrates south. If we say: "many birds migrate south." Then we can logically conclude that more than 1 bird migrates south. Essentially, on the LSAT you will only want to conclude the least amount of information possible. Dont try to figure out if all birds migrate south or if most birds migrate south because the only information that is gauranteed is what is stated in the sentence.
So can many include all?
If the lower bound of "some" is just at least 1, and the lower bound of "many" is higher than "some," can we just say that the lower bound of "many" is 2?
When the video said "you could just think of 'many' as equivalent to 'some'", I almost crashed out.
I’m starting to think that law is just all made up
Many is not the same as most, as most is higher. However many is the same as some. But some can mean all.
Bruh.
Would it be okay to think of many as meaning 'more than some' or 'half or less', since most is at least half +1?
Wait, in the context of many, 0, 1, and 2 birds count as must be false? I thought 2 birds would count as could be false? Should I treat "could be" as "must be" on the exam?
Here is what I am finding a good way to see it for those of you who are unclear:
If i said many students cheated on the test that could only mean 6/20 students which is still a lot in proportion of students who would cheat on any given test. On the contrary if I said most students cheated on the test then that must mean 11/20 cheated
I wonder if it would be helpful to point out that "many" can have either an absolute or relative frame of reference, depending on the speaker. As the description here states, "many" simply means a large number. Large numbers can be large in relative terms: 45 out of 50 people. Large numbers can also be large in absolute terms: 50,000 is a large number even when selected out of a pool of 2 million (in which case 50,000 does NOT meet the minimum 50% percentage threshold to qualify as most).
Since it's usually impossible to know without exact context precisely which meaning a speaker intends with "many", the safe assumption is that we don't actually know the lower % bound of "many" is. In other words, we can only safely assume that "many" means an absolute large number since absolute large numbers can still fail the "most" threshold.
Unfortunately from here, what constitutes an "absolute large number" is subjective. 50,000 literally does not receive numeric representation in some languages, since humans in unique environments may not have reason to conceptualize a number that large. Taking this example to the extreme: the number 2 will feel 100% bigger than 1 to a person who's only ever experienced 1 of everything. That person will consider 2 to be a large number and will describe pairs of things as "many."
As a result, "many" is only guaranteed a lower bound of "more than 1" and shares the same boundaries as "some".
so can many also mean all?
I'm confused as to why many doesn't mean most. Many people (for example) means that its above a certain majority, though why isn't it so in the LSAT? And why does categorizing it with 'Some' doesn't cause issues in logic if it isn't a true definition?
MOST means 50% - 100% (majority or could be all)
based on that logic...
MANY could mean 25% - 50% ? < more than "few" , less than "most"?
Context remains king on LSAT questions.
This is a little confusing...
- "Many" is a large amount
- However it is not equivalent to "Most"
- Safer to say it is equivalent to "Some"
Kind of makes sense because one could say there are many people who use a PlayStation over an Xbox.
Statistically, that could mean 1% to 99% of people in the US do.
I could be wrong though.
This might be a silly question, but "several" was listed as a quantifier that indicates an intersectional relationship a few lessons ago but I don't see a lesson dedicated to it... Does anyone know if we should think of it as the same as "many"? And in that case, would it be considered equivalent to "some" as well?
How would we express this quantifier in Lawgic?
Since "many" functions the same as "some," is it also expressed in Lawgic with the bi-directional arrow?
how is "some cats like to drink milk" okay for "one cat likes to drink milk"?? the statement defines and establishes a plural "some cats" like to drink milk...... so does that not mean at least more than one has to like drinking milk?