Here, we take a step back and get some perspective on why we care about quantifiers.
“Many large pharmaceutical companies are racing to develop the vaccine for a novel coronavirus. This makes sense economically and morally as there are billions of dollars to be made and millions of lives to be saved.”
If the statement above is true, then which one of the following is most strongly supported?
(A) Most large pharmaceutical companies are racing to develop a vaccine for a novel coronavirus. (this is wrong don’t confuse most for many!!!!!) it does not imply most! Not true!!!
(B) Some pharmaceutical companies are working on a vaccine for a novel coronavirus. (correct answer choice)
(C) Some pharmaceutical companies are investing all their resources on developing a vaccine for a novel coronavirus. (wrong) It does not mention in the passage “investing all their resources” this is never mentioned and not supported. Just because companies are racing to develop a vaccine doesn’t imply that they are investing all of their resources.
RECAP:
Much of the LSAT is about making supportable inferences. It’s important both to recognize when an inference ought to be made (e.g., “many” implies “some”) and to recognize when an inference is unsupported (e.g., “racing to develop” doesn’t imply “investing all resources”).
How do we know when to bring in general knowledge versus stick to the stimulus? For example, we kind of assumed that racing to develop the vaccine doesn't mean the company is investing all resources right?
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.
real LSAT examples make me feel like im actually learning something! thank you :)
17
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!
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!
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.
48 comments
Here, we take a step back and get some perspective on why we care about quantifiers.
“Many large pharmaceutical companies are racing to develop the vaccine for a novel coronavirus. This makes sense economically and morally as there are billions of dollars to be made and millions of lives to be saved.”
If the statement above is true, then which one of the following is most strongly supported?
(A) Most large pharmaceutical companies are racing to develop a vaccine for a novel coronavirus. (this is wrong don’t confuse most for many!!!!!) it does not imply most! Not true!!!
(B) Some pharmaceutical companies are working on a vaccine for a novel coronavirus. (correct answer choice)
(C) Some pharmaceutical companies are investing all their resources on developing a vaccine for a novel coronavirus. (wrong) It does not mention in the passage “investing all their resources” this is never mentioned and not supported. Just because companies are racing to develop a vaccine doesn’t imply that they are investing all of their resources.
RECAP:
Much of the LSAT is about making supportable inferences. It’s important both to recognize when an inference ought to be made (e.g., “many” implies “some”) and to recognize when an inference is unsupported (e.g., “racing to develop” doesn’t imply “investing all resources”).
everything is making so much sense now!!!!
So that means that quantifiers can come in a middle of a sentence not just the beginning, like in answer choice C ?
Would this be better diagrammed in the beginning as
All->Most->Many/Some-> Few ?
Some and most really threw me off when taking PT's. Understanding this language will help me quickly identity wrong answers.
f my fing chungus life
How do we know when to bring in general knowledge versus stick to the stimulus? For example, we kind of assumed that racing to develop the vaccine doesn't mean the company is investing all resources right?
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 :)