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".
Can the negated version "Anywhere from none to exactly half of A are B" be two conditional relationships joined by the exclusive "or"? (or the inclusive and/or, we just know that the "and" situation wouldn't happen because you can't have some and none together)
Each relationship:
Some A are B: A ←s→ B
No A are B: A → /B
Together:
(A ←s→ B ) or (A → /B)
Could this be valuable in some circumstances? Maybe to find the broken down possibilities in an answer choice?
#feedback So we decline what he said in the first half of this lesson. Videos 1-16; he told SOME AND MOST don't have A CONTRAPOSITIVE. Because now he's teaching us they do? Am I right? They technically have contrapositives now.
#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.
I am a bit confused as to these negations relevancy? I understand being familiar with being presented a relationship like this but is that the only reason it was included in foundations?
Why is it that the negation of 'all A are B' is 'some A are not B'? After all, we discussed that 'some' implies at least one. But if I'm saying that 'not all A are B,' doesn't that leave room for the possibility that no A are B? I understand that those two statements aren't equivalent, but it doesn't make sense to me that the negation is 'SOME A are B' if there is the possibility of 0 A being B.
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
7
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.
75 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".
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
could it also be that if not most, all? (it is not the case that most ride subway. in fact, all new yorkers ride subway)
67
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
Most clowns are unionized
Negation: /(C-m->U) "It's not the case that most clowns are unionized"
Translated: 0-50% of clowns are unionized
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
Cant you just say MOST A are not B
Can the negated version "Anywhere from none to exactly half of A are B" be two conditional relationships joined by the exclusive "or"? (or the inclusive and/or, we just know that the "and" situation wouldn't happen because you can't have some and none together)
Each relationship:
Some A are B: A ←s→ B
No A are B: A → /B
Together:
(A ←s→ B ) or (A → /B)
Could this be valuable in some circumstances? Maybe to find the broken down possibilities in an answer choice?
Would the negation of most be equivalent to the idea of few?
Why are we negating so much? What is this going to do?
is it ok that this makes way more sense to me with just words and not lawgic??
this was fairly simple
So when you negate a "most" statement, "none" "few" "some" "many" could be true?
Would "all" or 100% also be considered as "not most"? Or is it only half or less?
#feedback So we decline what he said in the first half of this lesson. Videos 1-16; he told SOME AND MOST don't have A CONTRAPOSITIVE. Because now he's teaching us they do? Am I right? They technically have contrapositives now.
can you say a FEW nyers ride the train?
#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!
I am a bit confused as to these negations relevancy? I understand being familiar with being presented a relationship like this but is that the only reason it was included in foundations?
Kevin Lin has a video on negation that makes a bit more sense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hao4RlRa0e0
Why can't we negate "Most New Yorkers ride the train" to "No more than half of the New Yorkers ride the train"
*#help
*
Why is it that the negation of 'all A are B' is 'some A are not B'? After all, we discussed that 'some' implies at least one. But if I'm saying that 'not all A are B,' doesn't that leave room for the possibility that no A are B? I understand that those two statements aren't equivalent, but it doesn't make sense to me that the negation is 'SOME A are B' if there is the possibility of 0 A being B.
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
Just wondering why the negated example above is "Anywhere from none to exactly half of A are B" vs. Anywhere from none to exactly half of A is NOT B?
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