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
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"?
@futurelawyerhopefully I would abstract the ideas of this lesson into the way the test messes with specific wording to trick you. The point is just to always pay attention to the specific wording of every question, because the test exploits the fact that in everyday life, we conflate the meanings of words that are technically distinct (like many and most) in our colloquial speech, whereas the LSAT (and infamously, lawyers) will parse out the tiny differences in specific wording to screw you over.
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?
@krzhou_1 The difference between many and some is that it makes an existence claim, not a percentage claim unlike the difference between many vs. most. If X is many, that means that X exists (at least one of X exists)= X is some
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?
@Dbarsemian You are operating under an incorrect assumption in your example.
"Many people (for example) means that its above a certain majority"
This is not true in Logic or in English. There is no rule in either language that states that 'many' is an indicator of proportion, or of a proportional majority.
In Logic specifically, all the word 'many' means is 'a large amount.' There can be a large amount of something without that amount representing a proportional majority.
'Most' indicates a proportional majority and that is why the lower boundary for 'Most' statements is 51% or more.
---------------------------------------
Ex. 70,000 fans came to see the Los Angeles Rams play at SoFi Stadium. Many of the fans are from Los Angeles County.
-- this example uses the quantifier of 'many'
-- when we see 'many' all we know is that it means a 'large amount'
-- Therefore, we can't know if the number of fans that are from Los Angeles county is 1000 (a large amount of people) or all 70,000 (also a large amount of people)
-- When we see 'many,' we understand that there is a range -- but there is not a sharp lower boundary to that range -- it is entirely up to the interpretation of the reader.
Ex. 70,000 fans came to see the Los Angeles Rams play at SoFi Stadium. Most of the fans are from Los Angeles County.
-- if I change the quantifier to 'most' the way that we would interpret the sentence changes entirely and now must operate within a specific framework
-- we know that 'most' has a sharp lower boundary of 50%+1
-- we also know that 70,000 fans are in SoFi stadium
-- so, this 'most' claim has a sharp lower boundary of 35,001
-- we know for certain that at minimum 35,001 of the fans in SoFi stadium are from Los Angeles county, because 35,001 makes up the proportional majority (50%+1) of 70,000
-- In the previous example [using 'many'] we had no idea what the lower boundary was, and the number of fans in SoFi stadium from LA County could have been any number from 1000 to 70000 as long as it fit under the [subjective] umbrella of a 'large amount.' In this example we have the sharp lower boundary to inform us of some parameters.
---------------------------------------
I hope this helps to show the difference between 'many' and 'most.'
The value being described by 'many' is subjective and unknown and simply indicates 'a large amount.'
As said in the video, reasonable people can reasonably disagree. While I might say that 1,000 people is many people, you might say that 1,000 is not enough and that, really, 15,000 people is many people.
Neither of us would be objectively right or wrong and, knowing whether an LSAT question is describing 1,000 people or 15,000 people won't help or harm us in choosing the correct answer.
A value being described by 'most' is objective, but unknown.
We know that [within the language of Logic] the indicator 'most' is describing a specific value that is between 50%+1 and 100%.
If we are looking at a question in which the indicator 'most' is used and I say that 37% is most and you say that 51% is most -- then I would be objectively wrong and you would be objectively right, because my value of 37 is below the lower boundary of a 'most' statement and therefore outside the objective range of logically valid values.
If I said that 81% is most and you said that 51% is most, we would both be in that objectively correct range of logical validity [50%+1 to 100%]
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?
#feedback : Same question, I saw in a later chapter where many is converted to some with a bi-directional arrow but it doesn’t explicitly mention if we can do that for all many to some conversions
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.
62 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
can we equate "overwhelming majority" to "most"?
@KhushyMandania no, however, an overwhelming majority of X includes most of X, but the same cannot be said vice versa.
I understand many to be more than some and less than most. maybe this helps idk tho lol
Is it correct to understand that the upper bound for some, many, and most can all be the same?
@elchapin I believe it all depends on context
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"?
@caelesalad That's what I was thinking too
Is this even relevant im getting a headache
@futurelawyerhopefully I would abstract the ideas of this lesson into the way the test messes with specific wording to trick you. The point is just to always pay attention to the specific wording of every question, because the test exploits the fact that in everyday life, we conflate the meanings of words that are technically distinct (like many and most) in our colloquial speech, whereas the LSAT (and infamously, lawyers) will parse out the tiny differences in specific wording to screw you over.
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?
@andreabear LOL
@andreabear BRUH lol
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?
@krzhou_1 I second this question #help
@krzhou_1 The difference between many and some is that it makes an existence claim, not a percentage claim unlike the difference between many vs. most. If X is many, that means that X exists (at least one of X exists)= X is some
When the video said "you could just think of 'many' as equivalent to 'some'", I almost crashed out.
@ThisClose2CrashingOut it's in order to avoid the association between many and most
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.
@gabahahaha
think of "some" and "many" as just a quantity of something
think of "most" as a proportion of something
think of "some" and "many" as the same under the world of LSAT (since the test will not trick you in the difference between "many" and "some")
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?
@futurelawyerlol No, it can not. All is not a range and it is not ambiguous. With all, we can confidently be sure of each member of the set.
When we are talking about many, we know we have a large amount, but the largeness of that amount is unclear. All is a total amount.
Here is how I think about it.
Many monkeys at the Brooklyn Zoo are dancing could mean 15, 20, 30, or 100. It just has to be more than the lower boundary for "some" which is 1.
Most monkeys at the Brooklyn Zoo are dancing means at least 51% of them. If there are 100 monkeys then at least 51 are dancing.
All monkeys at the Brooklyn Zoo are dancing is a non-ambiguous statement with no range. It is simply total.
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?
@Dbarsemian You are operating under an incorrect assumption in your example.
This is not true in Logic or in English. There is no rule in either language that states that 'many' is an indicator of proportion, or of a proportional majority.
In Logic specifically, all the word 'many' means is 'a large amount.' There can be a large amount of something without that amount representing a proportional majority.
'Most' indicates a proportional majority and that is why the lower boundary for 'Most' statements is 51% or more.
---------------------------------------
Ex. 70,000 fans came to see the Los Angeles Rams play at SoFi Stadium. Many of the fans are from Los Angeles County.
-- this example uses the quantifier of 'many'
-- when we see 'many' all we know is that it means a 'large amount'
-- Therefore, we can't know if the number of fans that are from Los Angeles county is 1000 (a large amount of people) or all 70,000 (also a large amount of people)
-- When we see 'many,' we understand that there is a range -- but there is not a sharp lower boundary to that range -- it is entirely up to the interpretation of the reader.
Ex. 70,000 fans came to see the Los Angeles Rams play at SoFi Stadium. Most of the fans are from Los Angeles County.
-- if I change the quantifier to 'most' the way that we would interpret the sentence changes entirely and now must operate within a specific framework
-- we know that 'most' has a sharp lower boundary of 50%+1
-- we also know that 70,000 fans are in SoFi stadium
-- so, this 'most' claim has a sharp lower boundary of 35,001
-- we know for certain that at minimum 35,001 of the fans in SoFi stadium are from Los Angeles county, because 35,001 makes up the proportional majority (50%+1) of 70,000
-- In the previous example [using 'many'] we had no idea what the lower boundary was, and the number of fans in SoFi stadium from LA County could have been any number from 1000 to 70000 as long as it fit under the [subjective] umbrella of a 'large amount.' In this example we have the sharp lower boundary to inform us of some parameters.
---------------------------------------
I hope this helps to show the difference between 'many' and 'most.'
The value being described by 'many' is subjective and unknown and simply indicates 'a large amount.'
As said in the video, reasonable people can reasonably disagree. While I might say that 1,000 people is many people, you might say that 1,000 is not enough and that, really, 15,000 people is many people.
Neither of us would be objectively right or wrong and, knowing whether an LSAT question is describing 1,000 people or 15,000 people won't help or harm us in choosing the correct answer.
A value being described by 'most' is objective, but unknown.
We know that [within the language of Logic] the indicator 'most' is describing a specific value that is between 50%+1 and 100%.
If we are looking at a question in which the indicator 'most' is used and I say that 37% is most and you say that 51% is most -- then I would be objectively wrong and you would be objectively right, because my value of 37 is below the lower boundary of a 'most' statement and therefore outside the objective range of logically valid values.
If I said that 81% is most and you said that 51% is most, we would both be in that objectively correct range of logical validity [50%+1 to 100%]
I hope this helps :)
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.
Most is 51 to 100%
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?
Several is equivalent to Some.
Several X are Y = Some X are Y
Several in LSAT means at least 2, but not necessarily many.
Some means at least 1 but usually at least 2 lol
since several guarantees at least 2, and some guarantees at least 1,
so, we can safely say :
Several X are Y = Some X are Y
Correct me if I am wrong.
How would we express this quantifier in Lawgic?
Since JY said that the word "many" operates in the same capacity as "some," we can just translate it the same way: using a "some" biconditional.
Since "many" functions the same as "some," is it also expressed in Lawgic with the bi-directional arrow?
#feedback : Same question, I saw in a later chapter where many is converted to some with a bi-directional arrow but it doesn’t explicitly mention if we can do that for all many to some conversions
yes