I had this first thought as well! Remember that we learned that "some" only means more than zero and can include all so it wouldn't be a true negation. This is one of those times where you need to use logic to override your intuition and it's certainly a trap that the LSAT wants you to fall for.
#4 is a comparative statement, not a conditional statement so how you approach/set up the "lawgic" is going to abide by slightly different rules. If it was a conditional statement, it would say something along the lines of "No small animals move fast" etc. However, we are comparing the speed of small animals to large animals, thus we cannot slap on the negation rules that we previously learned (ie, some or negation of necessary). Therefore, we have to negate the entire sentence " its not the case that small animals move more rapidly than large animals." Its an easy trap to fall into, but the sentence is not saying that "small animals do not move more rapidly than large animals." Instead, we only know that "its not the case that small animals move more rapidly than large animals." Since its a comparative, we can either proclaim the other value as the "winner" or they can be equal. It seems like a small, minute difference between "large animals move more rapidly than small animals" and "small animals do not move more rapidly than large animals," but since, its a comparative, we only know that large animals move more rapidly.
I thought about that too, but then I realized that the statement "either large animals move more rapidly than small animals or they move equally rapidly" is essentially the same thing as saying "some small animals don't move more rapidly than large ones." They seemed to use this technique throughout the answers, like with the wheat example. I guess it's just to show that it's basically the same concept, just written differently.
#help I'm still a bit confused about this. Are those logically equivalent? I guess what's throwing me off is the word "some."
“Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals or they move equally rapidly” seems to say that "all" large animals are equal to or faster than small animals, rather than "some."
I got none of these right, I feel like each one follows a different rule :/
1) uses "Most" and we can negate this (as shown in the other examples) as "zero to half" or "at least half are not," so I don't know why that wasn't used to say "At least half of people do not like ice cream"
you got this! this is really tricky tbh and will just take time and practice!
to answer your question, remember that the negation of "most" is just the range COULD be anywhere between zero and 50% (i think, someone correct me if I'm wrong). So "at least" makes it seem like 50% is the floor, when really it's the ceiling. it can't be any greater than 50% but could be as low at zero. so no need to do any extra thinking of where exactly within the range it falls, it's enough (i think) to just know the opposite falls within the range but doesn't GUARANTEE a minority or a max of 50%. I hope that helps!!
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
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.
For Q4 there was no diagram, but was I incorrect to translate the problem the way I did?
*Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can.
SA → FTLA
SA ←s→ /FTLA
Some small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals can.*
I kind of ignored the "than" and broke it into subject and predicate and reworded it so it made sense to me. "If you are a small animal, then you can move more rapidly than a large animal."
Through negation I got "Some small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals can," which I believe covers the possibility of a tie that JY was mentioning in the video. But I'm not sure if this is correct. I saw another comment saying comparatives follow different negation rules. Is there a lesson on this that can give me more clarity?
Plural nouns can be tricky -- typically they mean "all," but there are times when they don't.
"People who study get good grades." I'd interpret this as "all people who study get good grades." So the negation would be "some people who study do NOT get good grades."
"People who study can get burned out." I wouldn't interpret this as "all people who study can get burned out" -- if it turns out there's one person who studies who can't get burned out, I wouldn't view that as a contradiction. The meaning of this is closer to "Some people who study can get burned out." So the negation is "No one who studies can get burned out."
Lol, okay. I think the other reason 7Sage negated speed instead of group membership is that they focused on the word "more" surrounding the quality of speed to mean "most".
This would change the meaning from SA → FTLA to SA ‑m→ FTLA.
So I guess "can move more" means most often move faster.
I think the difference between interpretations is that 7Sage is comparing who "wins" a certain quality, so speed is what we negate.
As per this lesson though, we're primed to think about individual small animals and individual large animals as members of larger groups. If we negate the idea that ALL small animals are faster than large animals, then some small animals are not faster than large animals.
I guess how I would make sense of the 7Sage explanation is that comparisons are just looking at who "wins" the quality and not the upper and lower limits of group membership.
Under that logic, I'm just a little confused as to how this example fits in the lesson though.
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."
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"?
@JenniferQin I also translated it using some-not. Some small animals do not move faster than large animals (which you can take further to say some small animals are as fast or less fast). This expresses the same ideal as the given answer (large are equally fast or faster). I think the given answer is clearer now that I've seen it.
For question 4, could someone please help me understand why small animals move more rapidly than large animals negates to large animals move more rapidly than small animals. I initially thought to change to "some small animals ..." can someone explain to me why I am wrong to assume the negation would include some?
whats the opposite than a is faster than b its either b is faster than a or as fast
saying some small animals are faster would not make the sentence not true. to negate the sentence you are making it not true. if the sentence becomes only partially true well it still can be true but saying that large animals are faster or as fast as small animals negates (makes not true) that small animals are faster than large ones
i was wondering this too,,, but what I think is that the answer key for the pasta question goes further to give a quantitative range (0 to 50%) rather than just stopping at the general negation "It’s not the case that most types of pasta are made from wheat." but this does not mean your negation is wrong. It's just a different level of detail.
The answer key might be aiming for a more explicit explanation of what happens when you negate "most," but this does not change the fact that your negation form "It’s not the case that most types of pasta are made from wheat" is perfectly valid, just like your ice cream example.
and I don't believe the words "like" and "made from" change the logical structure of the negation. both statements deal with "most," and your approach applies equally well to both cases.
In Q4, I fail to understand why the negation cannot be that Some small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals. This captures the full range required for the negation. Can someone help me understand why that is not a valid negation?
126 comments
Can I just slap one “It’s not the case that..” on any negation lol
i feel like such an idiot im not getting anything right and have been revisitng lessons lol
trust me, you are NOT the only one. These are not clicking for me at all
@goonkstr me af
For #4 can you say : Some small animals can't move more rapidly than large animals
I had this first thought as well! Remember that we learned that "some" only means more than zero and can include all so it wouldn't be a true negation. This is one of those times where you need to use logic to override your intuition and it's certainly a trap that the LSAT wants you to fall for.
Why is it not some small animals do not move more rapidly than large animals?
#4 is a comparative statement, not a conditional statement so how you approach/set up the "lawgic" is going to abide by slightly different rules. If it was a conditional statement, it would say something along the lines of "No small animals move fast" etc. However, we are comparing the speed of small animals to large animals, thus we cannot slap on the negation rules that we previously learned (ie, some or negation of necessary). Therefore, we have to negate the entire sentence " its not the case that small animals move more rapidly than large animals." Its an easy trap to fall into, but the sentence is not saying that "small animals do not move more rapidly than large animals." Instead, we only know that "its not the case that small animals move more rapidly than large animals." Since its a comparative, we can either proclaim the other value as the "winner" or they can be equal. It seems like a small, minute difference between "large animals move more rapidly than small animals" and "small animals do not move more rapidly than large animals," but since, its a comparative, we only know that large animals move more rapidly.
I thought about that too, but then I realized that the statement "either large animals move more rapidly than small animals or they move equally rapidly" is essentially the same thing as saying "some small animals don't move more rapidly than large ones." They seemed to use this technique throughout the answers, like with the wheat example. I guess it's just to show that it's basically the same concept, just written differently.
#help I'm still a bit confused about this. Are those logically equivalent? I guess what's throwing me off is the word "some."
“Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals or they move equally rapidly” seems to say that "all" large animals are equal to or faster than small animals, rather than "some."
Previous was trying to negate A → B by saying A ←s→ /B, that's where the "some" came from, but it doesn't mention the possibility of the tie
these are the type of lessons that seem easiest at surface level but I keep getting the answers wrong lol
I got none of these right, I feel like each one follows a different rule :/
1) uses "Most" and we can negate this (as shown in the other examples) as "zero to half" or "at least half are not," so I don't know why that wasn't used to say "At least half of people do not like ice cream"
you got this! this is really tricky tbh and will just take time and practice!
to answer your question, remember that the negation of "most" is just the range COULD be anywhere between zero and 50% (i think, someone correct me if I'm wrong). So "at least" makes it seem like 50% is the floor, when really it's the ceiling. it can't be any greater than 50% but could be as low at zero. so no need to do any extra thinking of where exactly within the range it falls, it's enough (i think) to just know the opposite falls within the range but doesn't GUARANTEE a minority or a max of 50%. I hope that helps!!
#feedback 2:43 the blue circle line thingy looks like baymax from big hero six
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! That's so sweet of you to share! :)
@dreamscometrue no problem!
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.
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?
@paulding77 yes but its unlikely that will be the lawgic translation of the answer choices available of the LSAT
For Q4 there was no diagram, but was I incorrect to translate the problem the way I did?
*Small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can.
SA → FTLA
SA ←s→ /FTLA
Some small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals can.*
I kind of ignored the "than" and broke it into subject and predicate and reworded it so it made sense to me. "If you are a small animal, then you can move more rapidly than a large animal."
Through negation I got "Some small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals can," which I believe covers the possibility of a tie that JY was mentioning in the video. But I'm not sure if this is correct. I saw another comment saying comparatives follow different negation rules. Is there a lesson on this that can give me more clarity?
Plural nouns can be tricky -- typically they mean "all," but there are times when they don't.
"People who study get good grades." I'd interpret this as "all people who study get good grades." So the negation would be "some people who study do NOT get good grades."
"People who study can get burned out." I wouldn't interpret this as "all people who study can get burned out" -- if it turns out there's one person who studies who can't get burned out, I wouldn't view that as a contradiction. The meaning of this is closer to "Some people who study can get burned out." So the negation is "No one who studies can get burned out."
I did the same thing! I was a bit confused that the some/all/most lawgic we've been working on wasn't incorporated into this example
I got the same answer, "some small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals." I think it would work, but I'm not sure.
Me too! #feedback Would love to know if this is also correct, as the sentence is
(imo) formatted as a conditional relationship because it is implicated that ALL small animals run faster in the original example.
Lol, okay. I think the other reason 7Sage negated speed instead of group membership is that they focused on the word "more" surrounding the quality of speed to mean "most".
This would change the meaning from SA → FTLA to SA ‑m→ FTLA.
So I guess "can move more" means most often move faster.
If this is true, then can does not imply ALL.
I think the difference between interpretations is that 7Sage is comparing who "wins" a certain quality, so speed is what we negate.
As per this lesson though, we're primed to think about individual small animals and individual large animals as members of larger groups. If we negate the idea that ALL small animals are faster than large animals, then some small animals are not faster than large animals.
I guess how I would make sense of the 7Sage explanation is that comparisons are just looking at who "wins" the quality and not the upper and lower limits of group membership.
Under that logic, I'm just a little confused as to how this example fits in the lesson though.
Could be completely off base! Lol.
@Kevin_Lin you didn't address the question. check my comment on this page... explanation of q4 is wrong.
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."
For Q3 can you say: half or more types of pasta are not made from wheat
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"?
@JenniferQin I also translated it using some-not. Some small animals do not move faster than large animals (which you can take further to say some small animals are as fast or less fast). This expresses the same ideal as the given answer (large are equally fast or faster). I think the given answer is clearer now that I've seen it.
@SaraWaite Thanks so much for explaining! Really appreciate it!
can someone explain why the negation of intersecting sects and proper notation is useful for the lsat?
For question 4, could someone please help me understand why small animals move more rapidly than large animals negates to large animals move more rapidly than small animals. I initially thought to change to "some small animals ..." can someone explain to me why I am wrong to assume the negation would include some?
Just helps to think that in it's an 'EITHER' in a comparative statement when you try to negate it.
Compare a to b, and then think EITHER is the negation;
whats the opposite than a is faster than b its either b is faster than a or as fast
saying some small animals are faster would not make the sentence not true. to negate the sentence you are making it not true. if the sentence becomes only partially true well it still can be true but saying that large animals are faster or as fast as small animals negates (makes not true) that small animals are faster than large ones
For question #3, what makes it different from question #1
I answered it as such:
It's not the case that most people like ice cream not(P‑m→I)
So why wouldn't #3 be:
It's not the case that most pasta is made from wheat not(P‑m→W)
does it have to do with the words 'like' and 'made from' ?
confused
i was wondering this too,,, but what I think is that the answer key for the pasta question goes further to give a quantitative range (0 to 50%) rather than just stopping at the general negation "It’s not the case that most types of pasta are made from wheat." but this does not mean your negation is wrong. It's just a different level of detail.
The answer key might be aiming for a more explicit explanation of what happens when you negate "most," but this does not change the fact that your negation form "It’s not the case that most types of pasta are made from wheat" is perfectly valid, just like your ice cream example.
and I don't believe the words "like" and "made from" change the logical structure of the negation. both statements deal with "most," and your approach applies equally well to both cases.
In Q4, I fail to understand why the negation cannot be that Some small animals cannot move more rapidly than large animals. This captures the full range required for the negation. Can someone help me understand why that is not a valid negation?
Could Q3 not also be, "It is not the case that most types of pasta are made from wheat" ?
the negation of #3 was just extra
@yes-coconuts Facts, Most types of pasta aren’t made from wheat
For Question 4, it seems like the instructor explained the question by understanding the meaning of the statement intuitively.
I believe I reached the same conclusion without taking the comparison into account by treating it as an "ALL" claim.
Original Statement: If it is a small animal, then it moves more rapidly than a large animal.
Logical Translation: $\text{Small} \rightarrow \text{MMRTL}$
Negating the "ALL" Claim: $\text{Small} \text{ AND } \neg\text{MMRTL}$
English Translation: There can be cases of a small animal that does not move more rapidly than large animals.
Is this a valid way to negate comparison statements?
Is there any question that uses the nuance in #5? I've never seen one and have done hundreds.
q3:Most types of pasta are made from
Answer: Most types of pasta are not made from wheat
If i can internalize this in my head that this means that zero to half are made from wheat is this acceptable?
@Scascio thats how i did it
What about ≤/12 (less than or equal to half of) for negating most?