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?
Just wanted to comeback to this lesson and show that there is a difference between some and many. As in the answer choices for this question, many implies some like the lesson teaches but is an actual instance where the test will actually penalize this conflation.
Something that helps me with these new quantifiers, and may click as well for those who have written literature reviews, is the distinction between "most", "many", and "some" when referencing scholarly opinions. I try to reserve "most" for when I'm describing a viewpoint that is widely accepted by the majority of scholars. For instance, when I say "many/some scholars argue that", I'm implying that a number of scholars hold a particular view, but not necessarily the majority. On the other hand, when I say "most scholars argue that", I'm suggesting that the majority of scholars agree on that point.
“Many scholars argue that 7sage should incorporate videos to help illustrate difficult concepts and enhance the learning experience. Some scholars, however, defend 7sage's current approach, suggesting that they are doing their best with the resources available. Nevertheless, most agree that, given the premium they pay for the service, they should have access to high-quality visual content that meets their expectations.”
Is it okay to say that many deals with quantites while some deals with proportions? Like some could be >0% while many could be 0.01% of a very large quantity.
How is many more than some if some could sometimes mean all?
1
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.
47 comments
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?
LSAT 1 - Section 4 - Question 21
Just wanted to comeback to this lesson and show that there is a difference between some and many. As in the answer choices for this question, many implies some like the lesson teaches but is an actual instance where the test will actually penalize this conflation.
#feedback
Something that helps me with these new quantifiers, and may click as well for those who have written literature reviews, is the distinction between "most", "many", and "some" when referencing scholarly opinions. I try to reserve "most" for when I'm describing a viewpoint that is widely accepted by the majority of scholars. For instance, when I say "many/some scholars argue that", I'm implying that a number of scholars hold a particular view, but not necessarily the majority. On the other hand, when I say "most scholars argue that", I'm suggesting that the majority of scholars agree on that point.
“Many scholars argue that 7sage should incorporate videos to help illustrate difficult concepts and enhance the learning experience. Some scholars, however, defend 7sage's current approach, suggesting that they are doing their best with the resources available. Nevertheless, most agree that, given the premium they pay for the service, they should have access to high-quality visual content that meets their expectations.”
If we can use "many" = "some" as a useful falsehood, how do we translate "many" into lawgic?
Is it by using a biconditional arrow as with "some", or a uniconditional arrow as with "most"?
if many is not equivalent to most, then would it be fair to conclude that the upper bounds of many would be most?
#help
Can we conclude it to Some < Many < Most?
Thank you!
Is it okay to say that many deals with quantites while some deals with proportions? Like some could be >0% while many could be 0.01% of a very large quantity.
So the lower bound of many is greater than some, but the upper bound of many could be the same as some.
How is many more than some if some could sometimes mean all?