If "few" = "most not" AND we already established that "many" =/= "most", then in the example given, shouldn't the first explanation of the example statement say:
"some silent films have survived into the current century but not MOST (instead of not "many" as written in the lesson)?
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
Why not say few means "some but not most" if we are going to translate it into "some are" and "most are not" anyway? Why say it means "some but not many"?
"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.
Some but not most could imply or complicate the interpretation by suggesting few could still mean more than 50% depending on the context, which we know is not accurate because the upper boundary of few is 50%. It's easier to say and understand what one means when they say some are but most are not.
#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?
Hey Diego! I could use some advice on how to take practice problems! I’m free most during the weekdays. My email is jungyang91@gmail.com and if you could send me an email so we can chat, I would really appreciate you!
I genuinely need some help navigating the practice problems!
assuming set X represents "silent films" and set Y represents "things that have survived into the 21st century," then:
#1 (X ←s→ Y) can be interpreted in two ways: "some silent films have survived into the 21st century" and also "some things that have survived into the 21st century are silent films."
#2 (X ‑m→ /Y) can be only interpreted as "most silent films (X) have not survived into the 21st century (/Y)."
With Rule #2, saying something like "few are" implies that "most are not"
Y can actually represent "films that have survived into the 21st century" rather than just things in general.
That way, with #1, both the statements that "some silent films have survived into the 21st century" and "some films that have survived into the 21st century are silent" are logically true
"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?
You seem to have misinterpreted JY’s remarks to mean that the inference is not always logically permissible on the LSAT. What he seems to be saying rather is that, for a question on the LSAT that has as part of its stimulus or answer choices the word “few,” while correctly answering the question sometimes depends on making the inference, there are times when it does not.
From the PowerScore Blog (Quantity Terminology: Some, Few, Several, and Many):
As mentioned above, few means two or more. But, this term, like the other terms below, is actually relative to the overall total. For example, if there are seven people at a dinner party, and a few of them are Republicans, then a few of them would definitely mean two or three of them (could few mean a majority (such as four)? In this situation, yes, because the overall group is small. But as the overall group becomes larger, few becomes increasingly unlikely to represent a majority.
If you have 3 total alien films and 2 of them survive, then “Few alien films have survived into the twenty-first century," seems incorrect to me.
The stimulus would have to say something like this instead to be both: "Few alien films were made in the 80's, yet most have survived to the twenty-first century."
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
46 comments
If "few" = "most not" AND we already established that "many" =/= "most", then in the example given, shouldn't the first explanation of the example statement say:
"some silent films have survived into the current century but not MOST (instead of not "many" as written in the lesson)?
How do we identify when is supposed to Some are or Most are not ??
@joao123 It's always both. Few mean "some are," and "most are not."
A “few” means >0% but <50% of the set
Could it be implied that more than half of the films have not survived?
Since most is more than half.
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
Why not say few means "some but not most" if we are going to translate it into "some are" and "most are not" anyway? Why say it means "some but not many"?
@caelesalad I questioned the same thing
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.
@CeciliaBurton1 who's my brave little lsat prepper? you are, yes you are
He introduced "several" as a quantifier as well a few lessons back. How do we treat that? Is it the same as "some"?
@annajohnson2 Yes
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"?
Some but not most could imply or complicate the interpretation by suggesting few could still mean more than 50% depending on the context, which we know is not accurate because the upper boundary of few is 50%. It's easier to say and understand what one means when they say some are but most are not.
I think I see now. Thanks!
#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?
Yes, that's I interpret it. I translate "few" to "Most are not"
#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?
yes, i was thinking the same thing!
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
Hey Diego! I could use some advice on how to take practice problems! I’m free most during the weekdays. My email is jungyang91@gmail.com and if you could send me an email so we can chat, I would really appreciate you!
I genuinely need some help navigating the practice problems!
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?
assuming set X represents "silent films" and set Y represents "things that have survived into the 21st century," then:
#1 (X ←s→ Y) can be interpreted in two ways: "some silent films have survived into the 21st century" and also "some things that have survived into the 21st century are silent films."
#2 (X ‑m→ /Y) can be only interpreted as "most silent films (X) have not survived into the 21st century (/Y)."
With Rule #2, saying something like "few are" implies that "most are not"
To make a modification:
Y can actually represent "films that have survived into the 21st century" rather than just things in general.
That way, with #1, both the statements that "some silent films have survived into the 21st century" and "some films that have survived into the 21st century are silent" are logically true
"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
You seem to have misinterpreted JY’s remarks to mean that the inference is not always logically permissible on the LSAT. What he seems to be saying rather is that, for a question on the LSAT that has as part of its stimulus or answer choices the word “few,” while correctly answering the question sometimes depends on making the inference, there are times when it does not.
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?
From the PowerScore Blog (Quantity Terminology: Some, Few, Several, and Many):
As mentioned above, few means two or more. But, this term, like the other terms below, is actually relative to the overall total. For example, if there are seven people at a dinner party, and a few of them are Republicans, then a few of them would definitely mean two or three of them (could few mean a majority (such as four)? In this situation, yes, because the overall group is small. But as the overall group becomes larger, few becomes increasingly unlikely to represent a majority.
If you have 3 total alien films and 2 of them survive, then “Few alien films have survived into the twenty-first century," seems incorrect to me.
The stimulus would have to say something like this instead to be both: "Few alien films were made in the 80's, yet most have survived to the twenty-first century."
Few As are Bs
Some but not many As are Bs
Most As are not Bs