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
@funkmastericejj If you break it down it makes a little more sense,
statement: All X-Wings have hyperdrives.
negate: It is not the case that all X-Wings have hyperdrives. Some X-Wings do not have hyperdrives.
Lawgic: X-wings <-s-> /have hyperdrives
If we're negating the claim that all X-Wings have hyperdrives, then our point would be that some of them do not. Therefore when translating to Lawgic, it would need to reflect that sentiment by negating hyperdrives. If you wrote it as "X-Wings <-s-> have hyperdrives," it would be no different than the initial statement because "some" CAN include all. So if you say some X-Wings have hyperdrives, it could be logically inferred that all X-Wings have hyperdrives, meaning that nothing was negated from the original statement.
Question 3, for example, says "no pilots are blind"
this infers, and it will sound weird but, "no (all) pilots are blind"
basically claiming that "if one is a pilot then you are not blind"
So, we need to show it is not the case that subset (pilots) is not encapsulated, at all, by the superset (blind)
Original: subset (pilots) is not encapsulated, at all, by the superset (blind),
Negated: so, if we say "one is a pilot and is blind" (P and B), then the subset (P) is intersecting in some form with superset (B).
Negated (2): that is also why we can say "some pilots are blind", since "some" implies at least one pilot that is blind. (P <- s -> B).
I'm not sure if that is the exact way to approach the question, but thinking of it as not intersecting, in this case, can help see how having two different answers can explain the same phenomenon:
Pilots (subset) intersecting with Blind (superset)
@NityaMaid The negation is translated to some, because the sufficient clause necessary to negate the original statement is "Some people don't enjoy the movies."
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.
239 comments
Is it okay to answer the questions with "It's not the case that..."?
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.
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?
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. ✅
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.
I too am confused. I thought "All" negates to "Some".
X-Wings -> Have Hyperdrives
X-wings <- s -> have hyperdrives
I don't understand why it would be X-wings <- s -> /have hyperdrives ???
@funkmastericejj If you break it down it makes a little more sense,
statement: All X-Wings have hyperdrives.
negate: It is not the case that all X-Wings have hyperdrives. Some X-Wings do not have hyperdrives.
Lawgic: X-wings <-s-> /have hyperdrives
If we're negating the claim that all X-Wings have hyperdrives, then our point would be that some of them do not. Therefore when translating to Lawgic, it would need to reflect that sentiment by negating hyperdrives. If you wrote it as "X-Wings <-s-> have hyperdrives," it would be no different than the initial statement because "some" CAN include all. So if you say some X-Wings have hyperdrives, it could be logically inferred that all X-Wings have hyperdrives, meaning that nothing was negated from the original statement.
Hope this helps :)
@lexieloo great explanation
I'm confused why some of these have two answers.
@RyanAlexander
Question 3, for example, says "no pilots are blind"
this infers, and it will sound weird but, "no (all) pilots are blind"
basically claiming that "if one is a pilot then you are not blind"
So, we need to show it is not the case that subset (pilots) is not encapsulated, at all, by the superset (blind)
Original: subset (pilots) is not encapsulated, at all, by the superset (blind),
Negated: so, if we say "one is a pilot and is blind" (P and B), then the subset (P) is intersecting in some form with superset (B).
Negated (2): that is also why we can say "some pilots are blind", since "some" implies at least one pilot that is blind. (P <- s -> B).
I'm not sure if that is the exact way to approach the question, but thinking of it as not intersecting, in this case, can help see how having two different answers can explain the same phenomenon:
Pilots (subset) intersecting with Blind (superset)
why is "everyone" in #5 translated to some and not most? Wouldn't everyone seem like most?
@NityaMaid "Everyone" would mean "all people." If one is a person, then they enjoy the movies.
@NityaMaid The negation is translated to some, because the sufficient clause necessary to negate the original statement is "Some people don't enjoy the movies."
[This comment was deleted.]
5/5!!!