"Many" and "few" could represent different ranges of likelihood if there's an expectation built in. Example: "Many Senators voted against proclaiming today 'National We Love Our Mothers Day.'" We would easily expect 100% of Senators to vote for that, but let's say only 80% did. In this context, "many" = 20%. Am I too far in the weeds? Is this a trap we need to look out for in LSAT questions?
Some of these like the Few vs Most where its mentioned these can be LSAT answers to trip us up should be demonstrated in an additional lesson with an example or an exercise we can drill to practice this concept with the explanation based on this lesson.
#Feedback Why say the definition of some is "some but not many" and not "some but not most?" Didn't we just hear that many != most? Why implicitly equate them here?
"The key inference, not always, but often, is to realize that most silent films have not survived." Does anyone have any examples for when this inference is not legitimate since JY says this inference isn't always valid?
LOL I just finished doing a section untimed where this was VERY important
25
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.
38 comments
None = 0%
Few = Some, but small (<50%, not 0)
Some = At least 1 (≥1, could be up to 100%)
Many = A significant amount (vague, could be less than half or more, but not trivial)
Most = More than half (>50%, could be up to 100%)
Overwhelming Majority = Very close to all (much greater than half, like 70–99%)
All = 100%
Dunno if this is relevant, but:
"Many" and "few" could represent different ranges of likelihood if there's an expectation built in. Example: "Many Senators voted against proclaiming today 'National We Love Our Mothers Day.'" We would easily expect 100% of Senators to vote for that, but let's say only 80% did. In this context, "many" = 20%. Am I too far in the weeds? Is this a trap we need to look out for in LSAT questions?
im hating these quantifier lessons, but i'm being very brave and pulling through.
He introduced "several" as a quantifier as well a few lessons back. How do we treat that? Is it the same as "some"?
Some of these like the Few vs Most where its mentioned these can be LSAT answers to trip us up should be demonstrated in an additional lesson with an example or an exercise we can drill to practice this concept with the explanation based on this lesson.
The interchange between most and many in this explanation is jarring. #feedback
why not translate it as "some but not most"?
#help!!
wait. but Some can be equal to Most. because Some could mean 1-100% and Most can mean 51%-100% so if:
x-m->/Y (Most x are NOT y)
how is that possible. what if it is 70% of X is Y. that would imply most AND some. Therefore, most of x (above 51%) IS equal to Y.
please help
Does this mean that "few" has an upper bound of half?
#Feedback Why say the definition of some is "some but not many" and not "some but not most?" Didn't we just hear that many != most? Why implicitly equate them here?
So there must be a relationship between some and most, defined as:
X←s→Y logically equivalent to X‑m→Y
Since, Few X are Y can be translated to X←s→Y, and X‑m→Y
Doesn't this mean at least one but less than half? Specifically, an upper bound of half and a lower bound of at least one?
i'm tired boss
LSAT 154, section 2, question 22 is a great example of where this is important
The quantifier "few" means "some but not many." You can translate "few" into "some are" and "most are not." Hence, few X are Y translate into:
1. X ←s→ Y
2. X —m→ /Y
#help
Does this mean that it is most x are not y and so we interpret it as
most silent films have not survived into the twenty-first century.
And the other translation of Some but not many is the other way you can translate.
Is he basically explaining there are two ways that you can interpret this?
"The key inference, not always, but often, is to realize that most silent films have not survived." Does anyone have any examples for when this inference is not legitimate since JY says this inference isn't always valid?
#help
For anyone looking for a sample problem, check out LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 22
Maybe this is unnecessary to think about, but couldn't "few" mean "most" at the same time?
"Few alien films have survived into the twenty-first century."
What if you have 3 total alien films and 2 of them survived into the twenty-first century? Isn't 2 still few, but also most?
Few As are Bs
Some but not many As are Bs
Most As are not Bs
#help
Is the range of few 1 ≤ Few < Most?
Thank you!
its really helpful when there are videos for the concepts!!
So is there a lower boundary to ‘few’ ?”
How would "silent ←s→ survive" be translated into English since the arrow is bidirectional?
LOL I just finished doing a section untimed where this was VERY important