I'm just confused why C is not correct. I felt like it was a reasonable assumption that investing all resources into developing a vaccine means you're racing to develop it #help
so "Some" is one of the safest options (depending on the context of course) but for the most part it is the broadest range and can help to understand as long as you know the boundaries of the others
AMAZING how you reviewed that LSAT styled question!
#feedback Please include more examples like this in the future! it helps so much to see how this concept can be applied to answering questions on the LSAT.
Most (51%-100%) → A majority over half but can be all
Some (1%-100%) → At least one but can be all
All three of these can be written in a context where it can mean "all" but "all" is strictly always ALL 100% no matter the context.
As for "many" and "few," its a bit more confusing for me to explicitly define it is how I defined it below correct? #help
Many → A significant amount but cannot be more than most (can this still mean all?? since the definition says CAN NOT be more than most which is over half? or does this just depend the context as well?)
Few → Some but not many (this is the last one so this is at least one but not more than half? so 1%-50%?)
This is the first question I've attempted since taking my cold diagnostic. It felt strange—but exciting—to actually break down a question and eliminate answers, rather than just rushing through everything. The curriculum is working!
You could think of "many" as being equivalent to "some." Let me be clear: this is false. We already established that "many" has a higher minimum threshold than "some." But, it's a useful falsehood because I've never seen the LSAT penalize this conflation.
but in this lesson "many" implies "some", can someone please explain..
Wouldn't the arrow between "some" and "few" be bidirectional?
all --> most --> many --> some few
If there are a few candies on the table, then there are some candies on the table. If there are some candies on the table, then there are a few candies on the table.
However, I am not sure why some --> few. It seems like "some" isn't a true subset of "few", but rather an intersecting set. This is because "some" can mean "all", but "few" cannot mean "all." So, wouldn't that mean that there are some situations where "some" can be used that "few" cannot?
what is confusing me is that answer A was the only one that had "large pharmaceutical companies" while the other answers just had "pharmaceutical company". wouldn't the word "large" be important in this context?
I have only taken a handful of practice tests but cannot remember there ever being questions that scrutinize quantifiers in this way. Is there a bigger picture application to these lawgic/grammar equations?
The example was very helpful + the explanation! I thought it would be a little more difficult without the videos, but it just makes me read + concentrate more which I think has helped give a better understanding.
#feedback I really wish we had more of these LSAT examples sprinkled throughout the lessons. Being able to see the actual applications while learning them is extremely beneficial!
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.
39 comments
I'm getting the hang of this!! Lawyers and mathematicians are so particular with definitions and words oh my god
Does "most" imply "many"?
I'm just confused why C is not correct. I felt like it was a reasonable assumption that investing all resources into developing a vaccine means you're racing to develop it #help
so "Some" is one of the safest options (depending on the context of course) but for the most part it is the broadest range and can help to understand as long as you know the boundaries of the others
AMAZING how you reviewed that LSAT styled question!
#feedback Please include more examples like this in the future! it helps so much to see how this concept can be applied to answering questions on the LSAT.
I feel like understanding Quantifiers is going to make most strongly supported questions so much easier to understand now.
✅ "All" always means 100%.
✅ "Most" guarantees a majority but could be all.
⚠️ "Many" is ambiguous—significant, but not necessarily most.
✅ "Some" guarantees at least one but could be all.
❌ "Few" always means less than half.
all → most → many → some → few
All (100%) → Every single element in the group.
Most (51%-100%) → A majority over half but can be all
Some (1%-100%) → At least one but can be all
All three of these can be written in a context where it can mean "all" but "all" is strictly always ALL 100% no matter the context.
As for "many" and "few," its a bit more confusing for me to explicitly define it is how I defined it below correct? #help
Many → A significant amount but cannot be more than most (can this still mean all?? since the definition says CAN NOT be more than most which is over half? or does this just depend the context as well?)
Few → Some but not many (this is the last one so this is at least one but not more than half? so 1%-50%?)
This is the first question I've attempted since taking my cold diagnostic. It felt strange—but exciting—to actually break down a question and eliminate answers, rather than just rushing through everything. The curriculum is working!
I don't think some implies few as indicated in the diagram. Earlier its stated that few implies not most.
Since the higher bound on some could be more than 50%, it seems possible for the statement
For example, if 51% of cats have stripes then the statement
"some cats have stripes" in true while the statement "few cats have stripes" is false.
in lesson 11 this was stated:
"Many" = "Some"
You could think of "many" as being equivalent to "some." Let me be clear: this is false. We already established that "many" has a higher minimum threshold than "some." But, it's a useful falsehood because I've never seen the LSAT penalize this conflation.
but in this lesson "many" implies "some", can someone please explain..
#help #feedback
Wouldn't the arrow between "some" and "few" be bidirectional?
all --> most --> many --> some few
If there are a few candies on the table, then there are some candies on the table. If there are some candies on the table, then there are a few candies on the table.
However, I am not sure why some --> few. It seems like "some" isn't a true subset of "few", but rather an intersecting set. This is because "some" can mean "all", but "few" cannot mean "all." So, wouldn't that mean that there are some situations where "some" can be used that "few" cannot?
what is confusing me is that answer A was the only one that had "large pharmaceutical companies" while the other answers just had "pharmaceutical company". wouldn't the word "large" be important in this context?
omg i got it!
I have only taken a handful of practice tests but cannot remember there ever being questions that scrutinize quantifiers in this way. Is there a bigger picture application to these lawgic/grammar equations?
So given all of the quantifiers we covered, is this valid?
All → overwhelming majority → most → many → few → some
#help
The example was very helpful + the explanation! I thought it would be a little more difficult without the videos, but it just makes me read + concentrate more which I think has helped give a better understanding.
real LSAT examples make me feel like im actually learning something! thank you :)
Having an example clarifies the application of logic to LSAT questions. Thank you so much!
having more lsat type of questions to support the material will ensure for better understanding because
This was def an aha moment for me!
#feedback I really wish we had more of these LSAT examples sprinkled throughout the lessons. Being able to see the actual applications while learning them is extremely beneficial!
great example applied to the LSAT!
I wish you led in with this!!!