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!
#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?
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.
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 think cause with most the lower bound is > 50% however, with few the upper bound is < 50%. so both of these are not even in each other's boundaries and it would be redundant. as with many, the only lower bound is more than some, so it makes more sense!
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
"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 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.
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."
According to the Powerscore blog (Quantity Terminology: Some, Few, Several, and Many):
"Last weekend I got into a conversation with a friend about the exact meaning of few. Yes, sadly, this is how I spend my time. Like many people, she has a very definite idea of what few means: three or more. However, from an LSAT perspective, is that definitely correct? Actually, no.
While many would agree that few means three or more, the dictionary definition is, “not many but more than one.” So, a few cannot be one, but it can be as low as two."
This is consistent with 7Sage's definition of "some but not many"
54 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%
@LarisaGrigoryan Thank you for this!
i'm tired boss
LOL I just finished doing a section untimed where this was VERY important
For anyone looking for a sample problem, check out LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 22
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!
#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!
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
its really helpful when there are videos for the concepts!!
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.
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
@caelesalad i think cause with most the lower bound is > 50% however, with few the upper bound is < 50%. so both of these are not even in each other's boundaries and it would be redundant. as with many, the only lower bound is more than some, so it makes more sense!
The interchange between most and many in this explanation is jarring. #feedback
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)?
A “few” means >0% but <50% of the set
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
Few As are Bs
Some but not many As are Bs
Most As are not Bs
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?
can few be only one, or must it be between one and 50%?
can anyone explain how to negate "few" statements?
So glad few means few this one time 🤣
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."
Could it be implied that more than half of the films have not survived?
Since most is more than half.
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
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!
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."
So is there a lower boundary to ‘few’ ?”
According to the Powerscore blog (Quantity Terminology: Some, Few, Several, and Many):
"Last weekend I got into a conversation with a friend about the exact meaning of few. Yes, sadly, this is how I spend my time. Like many people, she has a very definite idea of what few means: three or more. However, from an LSAT perspective, is that definitely correct? Actually, no.
While many would agree that few means three or more, the dictionary definition is, “not many but more than one.” So, a few cannot be one, but it can be as low as two."
This is consistent with 7Sage's definition of "some but not many"