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
@BestLSATmastereverrr2026 This made me pause too but you got it right the answer in LAWgic just not the translation back into english Ill explain why. The range of Most = more than 50% to 100%. When trying to find the negation, negation =/= contrapositive (ex. A -> B, contrapositive of that is /B -> /A). To find the negation of Most, it would be whatever is outside of the range of most (which the range outside of most is any percentage/number between 0 and 50%). This is why negating "Most (~51% to 100%) types of pasta are made from wheat" negates to "Zero to exactly half (0-50%, out of Most range) of the types of pasta are made from wheat", you can also see it written really similar in Question 1 but the answer that was given included LAWgic, but you got the formula down! The formula means "it is not the case that most types of pasta are made from wheat" and different in traslation to contrapositives, we are strictly talking percentage of wheat, the statement said nothing about non-wheat, only about the percentage of wheat pasta and that is what's being negated (or in other words sort of, disputed). If we were looking for the contrapositive it would be /wheat, but we're looking for negation like I keep saying. Example Me: Most, so about 70 %, of pasta is made from wheat. You: I negate that! It is not the case that most types of pasta are made from wheat, I say more like 45% (out of most range therefore negating it) I hope this makes sense!
For question #5, would another appropriate translation of the negation include, "Chess' ability to be an appropriate analogy to reporting on PC is anywhere from 0-50%?
or it better to understand it as a loser or tying with something else to be more appropriate analogy for reporting on PC?
Plural nouns in the subject can be a bit ambiguous. Most of the time there is an implicit all, but I don't think the LSAT adheres to that interpretation as a rule. They can refer to the group of things as one entity or arguably even just some members of a group.
This statement is further complicated by "can." It seems you want to interpret [plural subject] [predicate] as if it's always [plural subject] --> [predicate], regardless of the specific content of the predicate? Or is there another approach you're using?
I also see the issue now. I was treating the plural subject as if it automatically carried an “all” reading, and I didn’t handle the “can” / comparative structure carefully. Given the LSAT’s ambiguity with bare plurals (and “can” often cueing possibility/existence), my “all–all / pairwise” setup was an overreach, and your pushback makes sense.
So I agree I shouldn’t have asserted that interpretation as the “most logically clean” reading, and I should’ve framed it as one possible formalization (and probably not the LSAT-default).
Thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it, and sorry for the tone.
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?
@mattrettig "the best" is equal to most in this instance, which would necessarily rule out a tie. 'sometimes' isn't necessary in this situation IMO, as if there is a tie, neither is the best, if that makes sense
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?
@TSpriester "Chess is the most appropriate analogy ..." you just need to say "Chess is not the most..." This is a proper negation because it means either something else is a better analogy than chess, or something else is equally good — both of which would make the original statement false.
Remember most is 51%+, not just 50%. But in logic and especially in statements like:
"X is the most appropriate" it doesn’t refer to percentages.
Instead, "most appropriate" means:
X is better than all the others (no one ties or beats X). We can make a reasonable assumption here.
Meaning its #1, not just in the top half (51%+) .
So saying its a tie means it no longer the most appropriate.
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?
@JenniferQin"Chess is not the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns" excludes the possibility that Chess is tied with another analogy for being the most appropriate for political campaigns. Chess COULD be the most appropriate analogy alongside another analogy.
When negating a comparative statement, you must always account for the possibility that both items being compared are equal in value and explicitly state that. I negated question 5 with the statement "There are other analogies that are as appropriate as chess OR more appropriate than chess for reporting on political campaigns." Hope this helps.
@hectordbc Thank you so much for your explanation! I'm still confused as to why "not" and "it is not the case" can sound the same in English but have different meanings in logic! But I really appreciate your help and I'll need to revisit this question with my logic professor!
@hectordbc This is interesting. From my perspective, this was more of a superlative claim.
It doesn't say A is better than B.
Let’s say someone says: "Alice is the fastest runner in the school."
That means: Alice runs faster than everyone else — no ties allowed.
So if Bob runs just as fast as Alice, the statement is false. If Bob is just as fast as Alice, then Alice is not faster than Bob — meaning the original claim is false.
So: Saying "Alice is not the fastest runner" means: someone is faster or tied — same idea with chess.
I hope this makes sense or that i'm right. #feedback #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.
@OwenV Hi! I think they are slightly different because "Not all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can" means that there exists at least one small animal that moves slower or at the same speed as large animals. In contrast, "Larger animals move more rapidly or move equally rapidly" is a stronger claim that rules out the possibility of any large animal being slower than small animals. IDK if that made sense or if that's right so if someone else can chime in that would be much appreciated!
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.
@Lola I'm no professional, but I don't think so. Even if most (51-100%) people like ice cream, the remaining people still don't like ice cream. Therefore, it's not negated by stating some don't like it. And yes, there's the possibility that "most" COULD mean all, but without further information, that's an assumption. The "some" statement would only negate the case where that assumption happens to be true.
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.
122 comments
the negation of #3 was just extra
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!
Okay Q3 is throwing me for a loop so feedback would be great!
I translated/negated the statement correctly:
P—m—>w & /(p-m->w)
What Im stumped on is the translation back to English as I concluded: the amount of pasta that isnt made from wheat ranges from zero to half.
Im not fully understanding how we concluded that the pasta is made from wheat based off the translations.
@BestLSATmastereverrr2026 This made me pause too but you got it right the answer in LAWgic just not the translation back into english Ill explain why. The range of Most = more than 50% to 100%. When trying to find the negation, negation =/= contrapositive (ex. A -> B, contrapositive of that is /B -> /A). To find the negation of Most, it would be whatever is outside of the range of most (which the range outside of most is any percentage/number between 0 and 50%). This is why negating "Most (~51% to 100%) types of pasta are made from wheat" negates to "Zero to exactly half (0-50%, out of Most range) of the types of pasta are made from wheat", you can also see it written really similar in Question 1 but the answer that was given included LAWgic, but you got the formula down! The formula means "it is not the case that most types of pasta are made from wheat" and different in traslation to contrapositives, we are strictly talking percentage of wheat, the statement said nothing about non-wheat, only about the percentage of wheat pasta and that is what's being negated (or in other words sort of, disputed). If we were looking for the contrapositive it would be /wheat, but we're looking for negation like I keep saying. Example Me: Most, so about 70 %, of pasta is made from wheat. You: I negate that! It is not the case that most types of pasta are made from wheat, I say more like 45% (out of most range therefore negating it) I hope this makes sense!
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?
For question #5, would another appropriate translation of the negation include, "Chess' ability to be an appropriate analogy to reporting on PC is anywhere from 0-50%?
or it better to understand it as a loser or tying with something else to be more appropriate analogy for reporting on PC?
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
#help #feedback
Question 4 is wrong.
Why it’s wrong
“Small animals can (are able to) move more rapidly than large animals.”
Most logically clean reading is a generic / all–all comparison:
So in strict “pairwise” terms:
Every small animal can (are able to) move faster than every large animal.
Negation (one counterexample pair):
At least one small animal is NOT faster than at least one large animal (= that large is as fast or faster than that small).
In plain English:
but stoopid 7sage says: Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals OR they (referencing large and small animals) move equally rapidly.
@kju766 Why the hostility?
What do you mean by "most logically clean"?
Plural nouns in the subject can be a bit ambiguous. Most of the time there is an implicit all, but I don't think the LSAT adheres to that interpretation as a rule. They can refer to the group of things as one entity or arguably even just some members of a group.
This statement is further complicated by "can." It seems you want to interpret [plural subject] [predicate] as if it's always [plural subject] --> [predicate], regardless of the specific content of the predicate? Or is there another approach you're using?
@Kevin_Lin
I also see the issue now. I was treating the plural subject as if it automatically carried an “all” reading, and I didn’t handle the “can” / comparative structure carefully. Given the LSAT’s ambiguity with bare plurals (and “can” often cueing possibility/existence), my “all–all / pairwise” setup was an overreach, and your pushback makes sense.
So I agree I shouldn’t have asserted that interpretation as the “most logically clean” reading, and I should’ve framed it as one possible formalization (and probably not the LSAT-default).
Thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it, and sorry for the tone.
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".
@chantilas Because if you negate the original statement:
IT'S NOT THE CASE THAT small animals can move more rapidly than large animals
It's possible that:
(1) The large animals are faster
OR
(2) Small animals and large animals tie
@pamelajkok was going to ask the same question but this clarified it - thanks!
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?
@mattrettig "the best" is equal to most in this instance, which would necessarily rule out a tie. 'sometimes' isn't necessary in this situation IMO, as if there is a tie, neither is the best, if that makes sense
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?
@TSpriester "Chess is the most appropriate analogy ..." you just need to say "Chess is not the most..." This is a proper negation because it means either something else is a better analogy than chess, or something else is equally good — both of which would make the original statement false.
Remember most is 51%+, not just 50%. But in logic and especially in statements like:
"X is the most appropriate" it doesn’t refer to percentages.
Instead, "most appropriate" means:
X is better than all the others (no one ties or beats X). We can make a reasonable assumption here.
Meaning its #1, not just in the top half (51%+) .
So saying its a tie means it no longer the most appropriate.
I hope this helped!
@TSpriester You're correct! In the explanation, it offers two possibilities, one of which is a tie. "they move equally rapidly."
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?
@paulding77 yes but its unlikely that will be the lawgic translation of the answer choices available of the LSAT
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!
@JenniferQin "Chess is not the most appropriate analogy to reporting on political campaigns" excludes the possibility that Chess is tied with another analogy for being the most appropriate for political campaigns. Chess COULD be the most appropriate analogy alongside another analogy.
When negating a comparative statement, you must always account for the possibility that both items being compared are equal in value and explicitly state that. I negated question 5 with the statement "There are other analogies that are as appropriate as chess OR more appropriate than chess for reporting on political campaigns." Hope this helps.
@hectordbc Thank you so much for your explanation! I'm still confused as to why "not" and "it is not the case" can sound the same in English but have different meanings in logic! But I really appreciate your help and I'll need to revisit this question with my logic professor!
@hectordbc This is interesting. From my perspective, this was more of a superlative claim.
It doesn't say A is better than B.
Let’s say someone says: "Alice is the fastest runner in the school."
That means: Alice runs faster than everyone else — no ties allowed.
So if Bob runs just as fast as Alice, the statement is false. If Bob is just as fast as Alice, then Alice is not faster than Bob — meaning the original claim is false.
So: Saying "Alice is not the fastest runner" means: someone is faster or tied — same idea with chess.
I hope this makes sense or that i'm right. #feedback #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.
@OwenV Hi! I think they are slightly different because "Not all small animals can move more rapidly than large animals can" means that there exists at least one small animal that moves slower or at the same speed as large animals. In contrast, "Larger animals move more rapidly or move equally rapidly" is a stronger claim that rules out the possibility of any large animal being slower than small animals. IDK if that made sense or if that's right so if someone else can chime in that would be much appreciated!
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!
5/5!!!
For Q1. Is: Some people don't like Ice cream a good negation?
@Lola I'm no professional, but I don't think so. Even if most (51-100%) people like ice cream, the remaining people still don't like ice cream. Therefore, it's not negated by stating some don't like it. And yes, there's the possibility that "most" COULD mean all, but without further information, that's an assumption. The "some" statement would only negate the case where that assumption happens to be true.