I would negate this as just "Some pilots are blind".
Is there really a difference between "Some pilots are blind" and "One can be a pilot and blind"?
I actually feel the latter is not correct. It just states a possibility, not a negation of fact. Its possible that "One can be a pilot and blind", however still be try that "No pilots are blind". Just because its possible, does not mean its ever happened.
@danjpeach96 I think both of the claims "some pilots are blind" and "one can be a pilot and blind" both actively show how the claim "no pilots are blind" can be false! say if you are claiming that "oh, no pilots are blind" and i say "actually i know someone who is a pilot and blind" then i am directly refuting your claim (and also negating it!). That possibility of even one person being a pilot and blind negates the claim that no pilots are blind! i hope this makes sense :)
@mostxareyallyarezthusmostxarez Yeah can be false is not false, just an ability to be so. "Can be P and B" is not a negation. I think "One is a pilot and is blind" is what was meant. That is P and B. I don't know it probably doesn't matter.
If you can be blind and be a pilot, but there are no blind pilots then "No pilots are blind" is true. No getting around that
SO confused on this. It was never mentioned that 'some' is the negated version of 'all.' I understand how that makes sense but I'm starting believe these lessons aren't very comprehensive.
@ShanR It's there, but perhaps a little easy to miss. In the negating "all" lesson, it says that the negation of "All dogs are friendly" is not "No dogs are friendly", but is instead "Some dogs are not friendly"
@CaleighFreeman I think it's fine if you understand it, and understand the relationship between "It's not the case that everyone enjoys the movies" and "some people do not enjoy the movies," etc.
@AnthonyFlores I think it's important to remember that in terms of "Quantifier" All and No are the same concept, one is just positive and one is negative. They are inverse versions of each other that mean the same thing. No alphabets are not phonetic and All alphabets are phonetic mean the same thing!
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
what is the importance of knowing whether you are dealing with a conditional claim or quantifier member in sets, if A some B and A and /B are basically the same?
@Oblivion Can you elaborate on your question? Just to be clear, "No A is B" = "All A are NOT B." Those two mean the same thing.
But if we're asked to negate the whole statement (like we are in this quiz), we have to think about what it means for "No A is B" to be false. The negation of "No A is B" = "Some A are B."
@JosephAmoAppiah It is, just only the first half of the negation. With "Some people do not enjoy movies," you still need to specify that it is not necessary to enjoy movies to be a person. That's why the second sentence exists; just to make sure that it's abundantly clear that one is allowed to be a person even if they don't enjoy the movies.
I am not sure what rule we should be assuming for this question with the sentence started with some. I feel like so far with questions 1 and 2 none of the rules I wore ( which were the rules he summarizes at the end of the videos at the end of the page) coexist with the rules he put in the example.
For question 1, I’m confused about why NEC and SUF are being discussed. In this case, we are not negating the conditional itself. Instead, we are negating the term “All”, and that word should determine the form of the negation.
Because we are negating “All,” the negation should be “Some x wings are not hyperdrive”, rather than switching necessary and sufficient conditions.
I represented this as X < s> /hyperdrive
However, if we look back at how conditionals are negated, that would only apply if we were negating the entire conditional statement. In that situation, the correct negation would be X and /hyperdrive.
Since we are not negating the conditional here, why are NEC and SUF relevant at all?
@AkshayaAnnampedu For it to be true, it means some alphabets are not phonetic. By saying all alphabets are phonetic, you deny the possibility of some not being phonetic.
For #5, I understand why everyone enjoys the movies negates to some people do not enjoy movies, but if some goes both ways (Person <-s-> /enjoy movies), does this also say that "Some who do not enjoy movies are people?" That doesn't make sense to me conceptually, since I feel like that implies that some who do not enjoy movies are not people, and that makes no sense. If anyone has an answer, please reply
I don't truly understand why in questions 1 and 2 it can't be "no A are B" I know what I'm supposed to do, but I don't understand why it CANT be no?
If we are negating
"some A are not B"
saying "no A are B" WOULD negate that...right?? I know I'm missing something small but at this point I feel like I'm just memorizing and not UNDERSTANDING. idk id love some help if anyone could explain
@Bayside Just to be clear, "No X-wings have hyperdrives" would contradict "All X-Wings have hyperdrives." But it's not the bare minimum required to contradict it. When we say that we are "negating" a concept, we just mean, what's the minimum needed to contradict. That's why the negation is "At least one X-Wing doesn't have a hyperdrive."
QUESTION: in question number 3, the answer says SOME PILOTS ARE BLIND, but we agreed that some could go to the extent of covering ALL, so that would not be negating the initial statement
@MateoAgudelo the answer is SOME pilots are blind, which you're saying extends to ALL pilots are blind. (correct) and ALL pilots are blind is negating the initial "NO pilots are blind." because we're trying to get the bare minimum to negate, "some" is correct, even if it encapsulates "all."
this is so hard to explain but i totally get what you mean lmao
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!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
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.
252 comments
#help I have problems on these:
No pilots are blind.
I would negate this as just "Some pilots are blind".
Is there really a difference between "Some pilots are blind" and "One can be a pilot and blind"?
I actually feel the latter is not correct. It just states a possibility, not a negation of fact. Its possible that "One can be a pilot and blind", however still be try that "No pilots are blind". Just because its possible, does not mean its ever happened.
@danjpeach96 I think both of the claims "some pilots are blind" and "one can be a pilot and blind" both actively show how the claim "no pilots are blind" can be false! say if you are claiming that "oh, no pilots are blind" and i say "actually i know someone who is a pilot and blind" then i am directly refuting your claim (and also negating it!). That possibility of even one person being a pilot and blind negates the claim that no pilots are blind! i hope this makes sense :)
@mostxareyallyarezthusmostxarez Yeah can be false is not false, just an ability to be so. "Can be P and B" is not a negation. I think "One is a pilot and is blind" is what was meant. That is P and B. I don't know it probably doesn't matter.
If you can be blind and be a pilot, but there are no blind pilots then "No pilots are blind" is true. No getting around that
Part 1
Part 2
These videos on youtube by Kevin are helpful!
SO confused on this. It was never mentioned that 'some' is the negated version of 'all.' I understand how that makes sense but I'm starting believe these lessons aren't very comprehensive.
@ShanR It's there, but perhaps a little easy to miss. In the negating "all" lesson, it says that the negation of "All dogs are friendly" is not "No dogs are friendly", but is instead "Some dogs are not friendly"
@SavanahHoffstein Thank you
5/5, yay!!
lawgic really helps for #2. the rest i didn't need lawgic for
Is it okay to answer the questions with "It's not the case that..."?
@CaleighFreeman I think it's fine if you understand it, and understand the relationship between "It's not the case that everyone enjoys the movies" and "some people do not enjoy the movies," etc.
can someone explain question 2 for me? I thought the negation of "some" was "no," right?
@AnthonyFlores Yes the negation of "some" is "none" or "no".
Original statement: Some alphabets are not phonetic. aka 1%-100% of alphabets are not phonetic
A <--s--> /P
Negation: No alphabets are not phonetic. aka 0% of alphabets are not phonetic -- No A are /P
Using "No" as it is a conditional indicator from group 4 where we negate the necessary condition,
A --> P, (All) Alphabets are phonetic.
@AnthonyFlores I think it's important to remember that in terms of "Quantifier" All and No are the same concept, one is just positive and one is negative. They are inverse versions of each other that mean the same thing. No alphabets are not phonetic and All alphabets are phonetic mean the same thing!
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, I found these very helpful. gave me confirmation that I am learning something.
what is the importance of knowing whether you are dealing with a conditional claim or quantifier member in sets, if A some B and A and /B are basically the same?
Q2 ?
No alphabets are not phonetic = All alphabets are phonetic
Q3? No = All ?
@Oblivion Can you elaborate on your question? Just to be clear, "No A is B" = "All A are NOT B." Those two mean the same thing.
But if we're asked to negate the whole statement (like we are in this quiz), we have to think about what it means for "No A is B" to be false. The negation of "No A is B" = "Some A are B."
@Oblivion I think you are confusing that "No A" means /A, which is not the case. "No" is instead a conditional indicator (Group 4) so
For your Q2, "no alphabets are not phonetic" does mean "All alphabets are phonetic".
No A are /P. & "No" is a Group 4 conditional indicator meaning that we negate the necessary and in this case that then makes it: A --> P
you gave 2 methods to negate an all, yet on question one, when i did it one way, it just used the other and is telling me i am wrong.
@JiggityJack5 Can you elaborate? What is the one way you negated the statement in Question 1?
the fact that a different person is answering this and not using the concepts we just covered is very confusing
I think it's important to mention that the meaning of "not all" depends on context.
For example, All X-Wings have hyperdrives.
Notice that this statement is ambiguous. It could either mean
Interpretation 1: All currently-existing X-Wings have hyperdrives.
Note this is an intersecting set (quantifier) relationship.
Interpretation 2: All X-Wings that can ever be made have hyperdrives.
Note this is a sufficiency-necessity relationship.
With that in mind
Some X-Wings don't have hyperdrives is the correct negation when Interpretation 1 is correct
A thing can be an X-wing and not have hyperdrives is the correct negation when Interpretation 2 is correct.
I think it's important to mention that the meaning of "not all" depends on context.
For example, All X-Wings have hyperdrives.
Notice that this statement is ambiguous. It could either mean
Interpretation 1: All currently-existing X-Wings have hyperdrives.
Note this also implies a weaker claim, All X-Wings in the past have hyperdrives.
Note this is an intersecting set (quantifier) relationship.
Interpretation 2: All X-Wings that can ever be made have hyperdrives.
Note this is a sufficiency-necessity relationship.
With that in mind
Some X-Wings don't have hyperdrives is the correct negation when Interpretation 1 is correct
A thing can be an X-wing and not have hyperdrives is the correct negation when Interpretation 2 is correct.
is not everyone enjoys movies the same as some people do not enjoy movies?
@JosephAmoAppiah It is, just only the first half of the negation. With "Some people do not enjoy movies," you still need to specify that it is not necessary to enjoy movies to be a person. That's why the second sentence exists; just to make sure that it's abundantly clear that one is allowed to be a person even if they don't enjoy the movies.
@everleez great exlanation. Thanks
I am confused on Question 2: The rule for some is
Some A are B
then the negation would be
No A are B
so for this question I wrote
No Alphabets are Phonetic.
I am not sure what rule we should be assuming for this question with the sentence started with some. I feel like so far with questions 1 and 2 none of the rules I wore ( which were the rules he summarizes at the end of the videos at the end of the page) coexist with the rules he put in the example.
@anulirz hey, i think "some" and "some not" follows different rules, btw this AI explanation/exercise really helped me, maybe you should try it out?
Grab a pen and paper right now and do this physically.
Draw This
Draw a box and label it "All Alphabets"
Now draw 10 small circles inside the box. Each circle = one alphabet.
The Original Statement
"Some alphabets are not phonetic"
Now shade in 3 circles and label them "NOT phonetic"
The remaining 7 are phonetic.
Your statement is satisfied. Just needed at least one shaded circle. ✅
Now Try YOUR Negation
"No alphabets are phonetic"
Shade ALL 10 circles — none are phonetic.
Now look at your drawing. Are some alphabets not phonetic?
Yes — literally all of them are not phonetic. Your original statement is still true. You didn't kill it, you made it even more true. ❌
Now Try The Correct Negation
"All alphabets are phonetic"
Erase all shading — every circle is now phonetic.
Now look at your drawing. Can you find even one circle that is not phonetic?
No. Zero shaded circles. The original statement is completely dead. ✅
@anulirz
Some alphabets are not phonetic.
You see the words "are not" it's not similar to what we learned about negating "Some A are B."
When we read question 2, we are reading Some A are NOT phonetic. This means that all alphabets are phonetic.
But if we say some alphabets are phonetic, then we say no alphabets are phonetic.
Hope this makes sense!
For question 1, I’m confused about why NEC and SUF are being discussed. In this case, we are not negating the conditional itself. Instead, we are negating the term “All”, and that word should determine the form of the negation.
Because we are negating “All,” the negation should be “Some x wings are not hyperdrive”, rather than switching necessary and sufficient conditions.
I represented this as X < s> /hyperdrive
However, if we look back at how conditionals are negated, that would only apply if we were negating the entire conditional statement. In that situation, the correct negation would be X and /hyperdrive.
Since we are not negating the conditional here, why are NEC and SUF relevant at all?
would it not be easier to just memorize that if you are negating "some" than you always go to 0, if you negate "all" its always going to be "some"?
@LiviaLSAT but for question 2 some goes to all
5/5 LETS GO
Can someone explain how in this, "Some alphabets are not phonetic.", the not phonetic became just phonetic? Really struggling with the double negation
@AkshayaAnnampedu For it to be true, it means some alphabets are not phonetic. By saying all alphabets are phonetic, you deny the possibility of some not being phonetic.
For #5, I understand why everyone enjoys the movies negates to some people do not enjoy movies, but if some goes both ways (Person <-s-> /enjoy movies), does this also say that "Some who do not enjoy movies are people?" That doesn't make sense to me conceptually, since I feel like that implies that some who do not enjoy movies are not people, and that makes no sense. If anyone has an answer, please reply
I don't truly understand why in questions 1 and 2 it can't be "no A are B" I know what I'm supposed to do, but I don't understand why it CANT be no?
If we are negating
"some A are not B"
saying "no A are B" WOULD negate that...right?? I know I'm missing something small but at this point I feel like I'm just memorizing and not UNDERSTANDING. idk id love some help if anyone could explain
@Bayside wait nvm... why did it click as soon as I hit post LOL. Ok so I understand it for q 2, but still confused why "no" can't negate "all" in q1
@Bayside Just to be clear, "No X-wings have hyperdrives" would contradict "All X-Wings have hyperdrives." But it's not the bare minimum required to contradict it. When we say that we are "negating" a concept, we just mean, what's the minimum needed to contradict. That's why the negation is "At least one X-Wing doesn't have a hyperdrive."
QUESTION: in question number 3, the answer says SOME PILOTS ARE BLIND, but we agreed that some could go to the extent of covering ALL, so that would not be negating the initial statement
@MateoAgudelo the answer is SOME pilots are blind, which you're saying extends to ALL pilots are blind. (correct) and ALL pilots are blind is negating the initial "NO pilots are blind." because we're trying to get the bare minimum to negate, "some" is correct, even if it encapsulates "all."
this is so hard to explain but i totally get what you mean lmao
Will we be taught in a future lesson how this can be applied to LSAT questions? Because I am currently not seeing it.
@mibuch I am literally wondering the same thing. Like all these tips and when it comes to drilling im so lost lol
4/5 the double negative in question 2 got me.