The way I see this in actual questions is having a set of facts which might include the following: Most people have an irrational suspicion of pasteurized milk. Then the stimulus says the set of facts is proven to be false by some new study and it will ask us what conclusion can be made.
When a most statement is negated, you have to remember that it is improper to assume that most people don't. In this case, saying most people don't have an irrational suspicion leaves out the possibility that half of the population doesn't have the irrational suspicion. If half the population is suspicious and the other half isn't that is still a negated version of the original premise, "most people have an irrational suspicion of pasteurized milk."
Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can.
SA --> RLA
NEGATE: /(SA --> RLA) ; SA <-s-> /RLA ; it is not the case that all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can ; not all small animals can move rapidly than large animals ; some small animals cannot move rapidly than large animals - some small animals move less rapidly or at an equal speed than large animals do.
why is the negation for question four not: some large animals can move more rapidly than small animals. That feels like it follows from "it's not the case that small animals can move more rapidly than large animals".
Q5: I ended up (in english) with "Chess is sometimes not the best analogy...," which doesn't seem to comport with the written explanation but DOES seem to comport with the video explanation. (The "sometimes" allows for the possibility of a tie with other analogies.) Thoughts?
On the 4th is this statement not an all without the structural indicator? so would it not just be not all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals or does the can maybe change it so its not an all?
I understand for number 5 that just saying "chess is not the most ..." eliminates the possibility of a tie and thus is not a proper negation. However, for number 4, "small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals" doesn't seem to eliminate the possibility of a tie in my mind in the same way. Did anyone do anything similar and does this make sense?
Doesn't "No small animal can move more rapidly than large animals can," imply "Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals OR they (referencing large and small animals) move equally rapidly." If no small animal can move more rapidly than large animals can, then it must be the case that "Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals OR they (referencing large and small animals) move equally rapidly." Am I getting off track here?
The original sentence is: "Chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."
I understand that a proper negation would be something like: "Either something else is a more appropriate analogy for reporting on political campaigns than chess is, or something else ties with chess as being the most appropriate." or "It is not the case that chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."
However, I was wondering why wouldn't a simpler negation like "Chess is not the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns" be sufficient? Is there a meaningful difference between the two, or do they functionally mean the same thing in formal logic?
For question 4, I stated that "not all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can". This is slightly different from the answer they gave: "larger animals move more rapidly or move equally rapidly". I just want to make sure or clarify if what I said is a logically equivalent statement/answer.
wait is this lesson not like the others in that we don't really have to translate it into lawgic but just directly into English? Like for question 4 shouldn't the negation include a "some" statement because we are negating "all small animals"?
In my reversion to English, I keep forgetting to include ties. I have “no island is more tropical than any other” but exclude there could be a tie. I did the same for small and large animals and chess is the most appropriate.
To me, the negative of the animal claim is “not all small animals are faster than large animals.” I don’t see how the claim is saying that large animals are faster.
I’m also not understanding why we negate these claims if they aren’t logically equivalent to their original statement. It’s like we’re being asked to forget everything that the argument says and make our own conclusion with no evidence to back it up. It just seems irrelevant but I’m probably wrong.
so for number 4 can you say No small animals move more rapidly than large animals because to me that is the same as they move equally rapidly or large animals move more rapidly.
If small animal, then move more rapidly than large animal
negated = One can be small animal and not move more rapidly than large animal (which, don't forget, includes can move at the exact same rapid pace as large animal)
AA ‑m→ C negated /(AA ‑m→ C)
if appropriate analogy to.. then most(ly?) chess
negated = half or less of appropriate analogies for... are chess (analogies)
is this interpretation right too? I can derive meaning from it, like the original statement is that if something is an appropriate analogy to... then it's mostly chess. and then if it's negated then it's simply not that the case that (or, half or less of) appropriate analogies for....
is it right to say "less than half" instead of "ranges from none to half"?
0
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.
105 comments
What about ≤/12 (less than or equal to half of) for negating most?
The way I see this in actual questions is having a set of facts which might include the following: Most people have an irrational suspicion of pasteurized milk. Then the stimulus says the set of facts is proven to be false by some new study and it will ask us what conclusion can be made.
When a most statement is negated, you have to remember that it is improper to assume that most people don't. In this case, saying most people don't have an irrational suspicion leaves out the possibility that half of the population doesn't have the irrational suspicion. If half the population is suspicious and the other half isn't that is still a negated version of the original premise, "most people have an irrational suspicion of pasteurized milk."
Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can.
SA --> RLA
NEGATE: /(SA --> RLA) ; SA <-s-> /RLA ; it is not the case that all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can ; not all small animals can move rapidly than large animals ; some small animals cannot move rapidly than large animals - some small animals move less rapidly or at an equal speed than large animals do.
why is the negation for question four not: some large animals can move more rapidly than small animals. That feels like it follows from "it's not the case that small animals can move more rapidly than large animals".
For Q3 can you say: half or more types of pasta are not made from wheat
Q5: I ended up (in english) with "Chess is sometimes not the best analogy...," which doesn't seem to comport with the written explanation but DOES seem to comport with the video explanation. (The "sometimes" allows for the possibility of a tie with other analogies.) Thoughts?
On the 4th is this statement not an all without the structural indicator? so would it not just be not all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals or does the can maybe change it so its not an all?
Can I just slap one “It’s not the case that..” on any negation lol
I understand for number 5 that just saying "chess is not the most ..." eliminates the possibility of a tie and thus is not a proper negation. However, for number 4, "small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals" doesn't seem to eliminate the possibility of a tie in my mind in the same way. Did anyone do anything similar and does this make sense?
Doesn't "No small animal can move more rapidly than large animals can," imply "Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals OR they (referencing large and small animals) move equally rapidly." If no small animal can move more rapidly than large animals can, then it must be the case that "Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals OR they (referencing large and small animals) move equally rapidly." Am I getting off track here?
on 4 and 5 cant you just slap the ol "it is not the case that..." on the front of each statement to negate it and arrive at the same meaning?
Hi! My question is about the Question #5
The original sentence is: "Chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."
I understand that a proper negation would be something like: "Either something else is a more appropriate analogy for reporting on political campaigns than chess is, or something else ties with chess as being the most appropriate." or "It is not the case that chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns."
However, I was wondering why wouldn't a simpler negation like "Chess is not the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns" be sufficient? Is there a meaningful difference between the two, or do they functionally mean the same thing in formal logic?
Thank you so much for your time and help!
For question 4, I stated that "not all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can". This is slightly different from the answer they gave: "larger animals move more rapidly or move equally rapidly". I just want to make sure or clarify if what I said is a logically equivalent statement/answer.
wait is this lesson not like the others in that we don't really have to translate it into lawgic but just directly into English? Like for question 4 shouldn't the negation include a "some" statement because we are negating "all small animals"?
5/5!!!
For Q1. Is: Some people don't like Ice cream a good negation?
In my reversion to English, I keep forgetting to include ties. I have “no island is more tropical than any other” but exclude there could be a tie. I did the same for small and large animals and chess is the most appropriate.
To me, the negative of the animal claim is “not all small animals are faster than large animals.” I don’t see how the claim is saying that large animals are faster.
I’m also not understanding why we negate these claims if they aren’t logically equivalent to their original statement. It’s like we’re being asked to forget everything that the argument says and make our own conclusion with no evidence to back it up. It just seems irrelevant but I’m probably wrong.
so for number 4 can you say No small animals move more rapidly than large animals because to me that is the same as they move equally rapidly or large animals move more rapidly.
can someone explain why the negation of intersecting sects and proper notation is useful for the lsat?
For question #1, could the negation be: less than half of people like ice cream?
SA → MRTLA negated = SA and /MRTLA;
If small animal, then move more rapidly than large animal
negated = One can be small animal and not move more rapidly than large animal (which, don't forget, includes can move at the exact same rapid pace as large animal)
AA ‑m→ C negated /(AA ‑m→ C)
if appropriate analogy to.. then most(ly?) chess
negated = half or less of appropriate analogies for... are chess (analogies)
is this interpretation right too? I can derive meaning from it, like the original statement is that if something is an appropriate analogy to... then it's mostly chess. and then if it's negated then it's simply not that the case that (or, half or less of) appropriate analogies for....
these are the type of lessons that seem easiest at surface level but I keep getting the answers wrong lol
i feel like such an idiot im not getting anything right and have been revisitng lessons lol
Is it possible to use less than an less than an equal to signs?
is it right to say "less than half" instead of "ranges from none to half"?