This lesson makes it more complicated than it has to be. The easiest way to think of the negation of most in everyday language is just "less than most".
@YattaT That's what I'm saying!!!! I am confused because why do we have to do negating in LR???? I asked before: if we use this method, how do we spot it on the LSAT?
@aviemann In that case that would rule out the "exactly half" option, since if it is not the case that most A are B, then that could mean there is an equal amount of A and B.
For example, Most dogs are cute. Negation is: Anywhere from none to exactly half of dogs are cute /(D -m-> C). Whereas, most dogs are NOT cute is completely different, D -m-> /C.
On a scale of 0-100: Most dogs are cute will be 51 -100 cute dogs. Negation will be 0-50 cute dogs. Whereas, "Most dogs are not cute" will mean 51-100 dogs are not cute.
#feedback Just to clarify, the negation of most is NOT some. The reason why is some can imply that at least one person does. In this case, the range is 0-50 so it doesn't have to be one.
Why would "only a minority of New Yorkers" not be a correct negation of "Most New Yorkers?"
Most = 51% or more
Only a minority = a small percentage, or in other words, NOT most.
Directly from Google: "A minority generally refers to a subset of a larger group that makes up less than half of the total. The term has specific applications across sociology, law, and everyday language."
@samacus44 it's moreso an opposite. negating is saying it's not true. while most new yorkers riding the train isn't true, we can't just assume the opposite (only a minority of new yorkers ride the train) is true for LSAT logic. contextually, there are cases where it's within a "reasonable" amount to assume the opposite being true.
claim: "the coin landed tails"
it's "reasonable" to claim that if the coin didn't land tails, it would land heads.
@samacus44 Most New Yorkers taking the subway means more than 50 percent do. If you say a minority take the subway you are assuming less than 50 percent take the subway but the original claim that more than 50 percent of New Yorkers take the subway can still be refuted if 50 percent exactly take the subway and 50 percent don't. If you say a minority then you are not including the possibility that exactly 50 percent take/don't take the subway which is part of the sample size that refutes the original most claim. A true logical negation will cover EVERY possibility in which the original statement is false there cannot be gaps or overlaps.
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
that negation is incorrect. remember, negation and opposites are not necessarily the same thing. when we look at "most" the range is more than 50% (of the set in question) upward to 100% of the set (or in other words, all). When we negate something we are denying it. We are saying something like "It is not the case that most law students have taken the LSAT" (original statement Most Law students have taken the LSAT). When we do this negation, our attention turns to the set or range that is EXCLUDED from "most". Again, the range for "most" is more than 50% to 100%. So when we negate that (which means we are straight up saying no to it), our focus turns to the range that is excluded from most and that would be the 0% to 50%.
I feel like all this negating is just making things more complex because the LSAT doesn't ask for lawgic or negation really... I understand it's supposed to be a method to help navigate questions more easily, but it's just confusing me.
That's not true. The LSAT does not straight up ask for negation or contrapositives or really any aspect of Lawgic, but it does utilize it in questions where is necessary to diagram inferences or evaluate conditionals. It is also used in order to connect different assumptions. An LSAT question would say, "all red dogs go on to commit crimes" and it will then say "all who become lawyers, don't commit crimes"
RD -> CC
L -> /CC
What can you infer from this? Nothing yet, because to link up the 2 statements, there must be a common factor in both sides. Now, let's modify it to create the inference.
RD -> CC
CC-> /L
Inference: RD ->CC->/L
If you are a red dog, then you cannot become a lawyer. In this scenario, a question in the LSAT might give you the stimulus in the conditionals I described beforehand and then tell, you can you infer?
Or, it might give you a stimulus saying RD->CC + RD -> /L, what must be true for the conclusion to be true?
Or, what is most strongly supported? and the answer be a contrapositive or a negation instead of a straight up statement.
Or, in a flaw question, use a similar example except it is a contrapositive...
I keep seeing these type of posts. A previous sample LSAT question showed how useful this skillset is in breaking down claims this way. I think when you take the test, you'll see how differently you think about the questions than you previously did.
Again, it is supposed to be confusing. If it wasn't confusing, it would be easy and then we wouldn't need to study.
My understanding of it is that it cannot be what you said:
"Most New Yorkers do not ride the train.", because the "Most" lesson said that the subject implies that that means more than half and this section says that the negation is the following:
"The negation actually means that anywhere from zero to exactly half of New Yorkers ride the train."
Therefore we can not say that "Most New Yorkers do not ride the train" since the negation only applies up to exactly half.
No, and this is where the trap is set. It's not "most" but it can include these words:
-few New Yorkers ride the train
-some New Yorkers ride the train
-many New Yorkers ride the train.
Could possibly mean "half of New Yorkers ride the train".
So if we said "Most New Yorkers do not ride the train", it would exclude the fact that many, several, or half the population in New York rides a train.
Sadie and Viv, thanks for your comments. I also mistakenly negated the phrase by saying "Most New Yorkers DO NOT ride the train." This statement implies that 51/100 people DO NOT ride the train.
But then I realized this statement ignores the 50/50 possibility. It could be an even tie that some New Yorkers ride the train, and some New Yorkers do not. This 50/50 possibility works because we are still negating the ability of those who ride the train to meet the "most" threshold.
you could be right but I think you might be confusing some->all instead of all-> some. If remembered correctly, I don't believe some can mean ALL but rather All includes some. I may incorrect.
I thought about it this way and it helped me make sense of this lesson a bit more:
using the rule from this lesson, "exactly half of A are B" is still a valid option as it satisfies the negation of "most A are B". As such, if we say "Few A are B", we take away the possibility of "exactly half of A are B" which is valid because this intersection is in fact NOT most.
I hope this helped and please let me know if I am thinking of this the wrong way.
No, and this is where the trap is set. It’s not “most” but it can include these words:
-few New Yorkers ride the train
-some New Yorkers ride the train
-many New Yorkers ride the train.
Could possibly mean “half of New Yorkers ride the train”.
So if we said “Most New Yorkers do not ride the train”, it would exclude the fact that many, several, or half the population in New York rides a train.
no because "few" means "some are but most are not". We fulfill the "most are not" but remember, it has to be "Some are" and "some" is at least one. In here you are negating most which can be "anywhere from NONE to exactly half"
@aditikapadia no, because some suggests that "at least one" new yorker has to ride the train. but the negation requires it to be anywhere between zero to exactly half (remember: most is more than half). so if there are 10 total new yorkers, it would have to not be the case that more than half are riding the train. so if 5 or less new yorkers ride the train, we can negate it by saying [it is not the case that most new yorkers ride the train].
its important to understand that both the original statement and the negation cannot both be true at once. the key reason "not all" doesn't work is that "most" already allows for some exceptions. a statement like "most new yorkers ride the train" makes both that statement and "not all new yorkers ride the train" true at the same time. and negation cannot coexist with the original statement
96 comments
This lesson makes it more complicated than it has to be. The easiest way to think of the negation of most in everyday language is just "less than most".
@mhenwohl I think you're right here. I don't think writing this out into lawgic would be helpful
welp...at the end of the day...the day's going to end. hopefully it all clicks on a random Monday
@YattaT That's what I'm saying!!!! I am confused because why do we have to do negating in LR???? I asked before: if we use this method, how do we spot it on the LSAT?
@marikitten03 I have the same question omg
67
@ramrob2k12 dead
@ramrob2k12 Haha 67
@ramrob2k12
GET ME OUTTA HERE
As per the last Skill Builder: NOT MOST = HALF OR FEWER THAN HALF
Therefore: half or fewer than half of New Yorkers ride the train - not most New Yorkers ride the train.
NYer -m-> /TRAIN
Negating "all" "some" "most" claims is negating the underlying relationship.
take the opposite of what the terms stand for.
most- more than half -> negated = anywhere from 1 to half.
some- more than one -> negated = none
all- every one-> negated = some
Why are we negating so much? What is this going to do?
@ciwoller omg I thought the exact same thing! Haha like ok wonderful understood…. But why do I care?
Cant you just say MOST A are not B
@aviemann would love follow up on this as well!!
@aviemann In that case that would rule out the "exactly half" option, since if it is not the case that most A are B, then that could mean there is an equal amount of A and B.
@aviemann I don't think that's correct.
For example, Most dogs are cute. Negation is: Anywhere from none to exactly half of dogs are cute /(D -m-> C). Whereas, most dogs are NOT cute is completely different, D -m-> /C.
On a scale of 0-100: Most dogs are cute will be 51 -100 cute dogs. Negation will be 0-50 cute dogs. Whereas, "Most dogs are not cute" will mean 51-100 dogs are not cute.
is it ok that this makes way more sense to me with just words and not lawgic??
i agree i feel like the lawgic is almost like math which is totally overcomplicating it for me
#feedback Just to clarify, the negation of most is NOT some. The reason why is some can imply that at least one person does. In this case, the range is 0-50 so it doesn't have to be one.
Just want to be sure I am getting this right!
Yep that's right as far as I can tell
Kevin Lin has a video on negation that makes a bit more sense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hao4RlRa0e0
Why would "only a minority of New Yorkers" not be a correct negation of "Most New Yorkers?"
Most = 51% or more
Only a minority = a small percentage, or in other words, NOT most.
Directly from Google: "A minority generally refers to a subset of a larger group that makes up less than half of the total. The term has specific applications across sociology, law, and everyday language."
@samacus44 it's moreso an opposite. negating is saying it's not true. while most new yorkers riding the train isn't true, we can't just assume the opposite (only a minority of new yorkers ride the train) is true for LSAT logic. contextually, there are cases where it's within a "reasonable" amount to assume the opposite being true.
claim: "the coin landed tails"
it's "reasonable" to claim that if the coin didn't land tails, it would land heads.
negate =/= opposite
@samacus44 This also had me puzzled. I think because it could be 0, you can't use minority since minority still implies at 0<
@samacus44 The problem is if we had 0-49 and 51-100, we could technically use that.
But since our dear '50' is there, we can't because what if it's exactly half?
It's not most, but it's also not a minority, so there's room for contention there.
@samacus44 Most New Yorkers taking the subway means more than 50 percent do. If you say a minority take the subway you are assuming less than 50 percent take the subway but the original claim that more than 50 percent of New Yorkers take the subway can still be refuted if 50 percent exactly take the subway and 50 percent don't. If you say a minority then you are not including the possibility that exactly 50 percent take/don't take the subway which is part of the sample size that refutes the original most claim. A true logical negation will cover EVERY possibility in which the original statement is false there cannot be gaps or overlaps.
"few to no" New Yorkers ride the train is close, but does not cover the case where exactly 50% ride the train lol Oh well
Most A are B.
Negated:
It's not the case that most A are B.
Half or less of A are B.
Is "Half or Less of A are B" an accurate translation of this concept?
#Feedback
#Tutor #Instructor
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
@Elideebeep Thank you so much!
Heroes and /wear capes
Heroes <-s-> /wear capes
you get the point..
@AM2027 hahahahahahha love it!
@Elideebeep thank you!!
@tinab sure thing!!
Original: Most vegans who are mute are kind
Negated: It's not the case that most vegans who are mute are kind
Translated: 0-50% of vegans who are mute are kind
Would the negation of most be equivalent to the idea of few?
No, because "few" implies more than 0%. "Not most" can potentially mean 0%.
@ciwsoller @mariafreese
Was thinking this also. Thanks for the Q&A
Would "all" or 100% also be considered as "not most"? Or is it only half or less?
Why can't we negate "Most New Yorkers ride the train" to "No more than half of the New Yorkers ride the train"
I think its technically the same thing
For the example, “Most New Yorkers ride the train”
Could “Most New Yorkers don’t ride the train.” Be a proper negation?
If not, could someone explain why it wouldn’t be correct?
#help
that negation is incorrect. remember, negation and opposites are not necessarily the same thing. when we look at "most" the range is more than 50% (of the set in question) upward to 100% of the set (or in other words, all). When we negate something we are denying it. We are saying something like "It is not the case that most law students have taken the LSAT" (original statement Most Law students have taken the LSAT). When we do this negation, our attention turns to the set or range that is EXCLUDED from "most". Again, the range for "most" is more than 50% to 100%. So when we negate that (which means we are straight up saying no to it), our focus turns to the range that is excluded from most and that would be the 0% to 50%.
Hope this helps!
I feel like all this negating is just making things more complex because the LSAT doesn't ask for lawgic or negation really... I understand it's supposed to be a method to help navigate questions more easily, but it's just confusing me.
That's not true. The LSAT does not straight up ask for negation or contrapositives or really any aspect of Lawgic, but it does utilize it in questions where is necessary to diagram inferences or evaluate conditionals. It is also used in order to connect different assumptions. An LSAT question would say, "all red dogs go on to commit crimes" and it will then say "all who become lawyers, don't commit crimes"
RD -> CC
L -> /CC
What can you infer from this? Nothing yet, because to link up the 2 statements, there must be a common factor in both sides. Now, let's modify it to create the inference.
RD -> CC
CC-> /L
Inference: RD ->CC->/L
If you are a red dog, then you cannot become a lawyer. In this scenario, a question in the LSAT might give you the stimulus in the conditionals I described beforehand and then tell, you can you infer?
Or, it might give you a stimulus saying RD->CC + RD -> /L, what must be true for the conclusion to be true?
Or, what is most strongly supported? and the answer be a contrapositive or a negation instead of a straight up statement.
Or, in a flaw question, use a similar example except it is a contrapositive...
I keep seeing these type of posts. A previous sample LSAT question showed how useful this skillset is in breaking down claims this way. I think when you take the test, you'll see how differently you think about the questions than you previously did.
Again, it is supposed to be confusing. If it wasn't confusing, it would be easy and then we wouldn't need to study.
Is "It's not the case that most A are B" same as "It's the case that most A are not B"?
Original: Most New Yorkers ride the train.
Adding "It's not the case that..."
Negated: It's not the case that most New Yorkers ride the train.
can we say: Most New Yorkers do not ride the train.
Hi there vivw999!
My understanding of it is that it cannot be what you said:
"Most New Yorkers do not ride the train.", because the "Most" lesson said that the subject implies that that means more than half and this section says that the negation is the following:
"The negation actually means that anywhere from zero to exactly half of New Yorkers ride the train."
Therefore we can not say that "Most New Yorkers do not ride the train" since the negation only applies up to exactly half.
Hope that this helps! Happy studying.
No, and this is where the trap is set. It's not "most" but it can include these words:
-few New Yorkers ride the train
-some New Yorkers ride the train
-many New Yorkers ride the train.
Could possibly mean "half of New Yorkers ride the train".
So if we said "Most New Yorkers do not ride the train", it would exclude the fact that many, several, or half the population in New York rides a train.
Sadie and Viv, thanks for your comments. I also mistakenly negated the phrase by saying "Most New Yorkers DO NOT ride the train." This statement implies that 51/100 people DO NOT ride the train.
But then I realized this statement ignores the 50/50 possibility. It could be an even tie that some New Yorkers ride the train, and some New Yorkers do not. This 50/50 possibility works because we are still negating the ability of those who ride the train to meet the "most" threshold.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think some is included since the range is none to half and the upper bound of some is all!
you could be right but I think you might be confusing some->all instead of all-> some. If remembered correctly, I don't believe some can mean ALL but rather All includes some. I may incorrect.
I stand corrected, I went back to review and you are right. Thanks for asking.
why couldn't you negate it to "Few A are B?"
#help (Added by Admin)
I thought about it this way and it helped me make sense of this lesson a bit more:
using the rule from this lesson, "exactly half of A are B" is still a valid option as it satisfies the negation of "most A are B". As such, if we say "Few A are B", we take away the possibility of "exactly half of A are B" which is valid because this intersection is in fact NOT most.
I hope this helped and please let me know if I am thinking of this the wrong way.
same question
No, and this is where the trap is set. It’s not “most” but it can include these words:
-few New Yorkers ride the train
-some New Yorkers ride the train
-many New Yorkers ride the train.
Could possibly mean “half of New Yorkers ride the train”.
So if we said “Most New Yorkers do not ride the train”, it would exclude the fact that many, several, or half the population in New York rides a train.
no because "few" means "some are but most are not". We fulfill the "most are not" but remember, it has to be "Some are" and "some" is at least one. In here you are negating most which can be "anywhere from NONE to exactly half"
Why is "All New Yorkers ride the train" not included? Didn't the lesson about negation say that it means everything other than _?
I think that's because "most" can include "all"
So you don't deny the verb for most statements?
does few always eaual some are and most are not?
If I am trying to negate most A are B can I not negate it by claiming 50 percent or fewer of A are B?
Can this also negate to "some"? Or "not all"?
@aditikapadia no, because some suggests that "at least one" new yorker has to ride the train. but the negation requires it to be anywhere between zero to exactly half (remember: most is more than half). so if there are 10 total new yorkers, it would have to not be the case that more than half are riding the train. so if 5 or less new yorkers ride the train, we can negate it by saying [it is not the case that most new yorkers ride the train].
its important to understand that both the original statement and the negation cannot both be true at once. the key reason "not all" doesn't work is that "most" already allows for some exceptions. a statement like "most new yorkers ride the train" makes both that statement and "not all new yorkers ride the train" true at the same time. and negation cannot coexist with the original statement