For me I think the big thing here wasn't quite the lawgic part of it, but the words "produce" and "almonds" aren't equivalent so to me I couldn't even make a chain
wait okay okay after sitting w this for like ten minutes i think i get it. most almonds are grown in cali. most cali produce is exported to brazil. produce does NOT have to include almonds. cali produce can be avocados, apples, cherries, corn, wheat, blah blah blah and yes it COULD include almonds MAYBE but almonds also could be the ONE THING that is not included in "most" of cali's produce.
i appreciate the strategy of "lawgic" for the harder questions but as a writer/reader i sometimes find it much easier to think it through with words rather than symbols. the formula is nice, but it gets a little too "math-y" for me lol
@hannahhjh same, it's hard for me to translate to lawgic then back to english quick enough to meet the time limits for questions. the equation aspect helped in the earlier lessons but as they're getting more complicated, the symbols are confusing me more.
So to have a vaild conclusion would we need to say:
Most of America's almonds are grown in California. Most Almonds grown in California are exported to Brazil. Therefore some almonds are exported to Brazil.
@besrawi I think it would be: Most of America's almonds are grown in California. Most of America's almonds are exported to Brazil. Therefore some of California's almonds are exported to Brazil. The difference is that in the first sentence you are talking about America's almonds and in the second you are talking about the almonds grown in California. But I could be wrong
@Disney Hmm I think the phrasing we would need to make it am airtight valid argument would be: Most of America's almonds are grown in California. All of California's produce is exported to Brazil. Therefore, some of America's almonds are exported to Brazil. This would follow Formal Argument #5, "most before all." That way, it is a guarantee that at least some of America's almonds are exported to Brazil.
I do think your proposed answer would still make a valid argument though. If America produced 10 almonds, and 6 of them were grown in California, and most of America's almonds are exported to Brazil, at least one almond grown in California will end up in Brazil. I'm really curious to see what a 7Sage tutor has to say about this, because your example is really throwing me LOL (because I think it's valid).
@SarahHolmes754 i get caught up in the words a lot, but drawing triple venn diagrams really helps me lol. a lot of the invalid arguments of this flaw section of the curriculum is based on the fact that the "B" bucket could be huge. Therefore, if only "some" or "most" of B are C, A could have a real good chance of never being in C, which is why those conclusions are invalid.
There is a grammatical error in the argument here. Produce is a mass noun. It needs a singular verb. This should read: "Most produce from California is exported to Brazil."
So pretty much its invalid because while there's the chance some almonds are exported to Brazil from CA it cant be proven with the info we were given, so saying yes or no would just be a 50/50 guess?
I think the bucket analogy might help here - but someone let me know if this is more confusing.
Say we have 4 of A, B, and C. If 3/4 As are in the B bucket, and 3/4 Bs are in the C bucket, SOME As being in C is not super likely. Maybe a few, but the boundary for some is greater than few. You could say "at least a few As are in C" and that would make more sense, but not "some" because that's not necessarily true.
Example: Most hummingbirds are brightly colored. Most brightly colored animals are poisonous. Therefore, some hummingbirds are poisonous.
Discarding intuition, we don't know that some hummingbirds are poisonous just because most brightly colored animals are. Hummingbirds are a smaller set than "poisonous brightly colored animals". We don't know if these two sets overlap in any meaningful way.
Remember: When two "most" statements are chained together, there are no valid conclusions to be drawn.
The ONLY instance in which two "most" claims can work together to draw a conclusion is when two "most" arrows come from the same set
A -m-> C
A -m-> B
____
C <-s-> B
Ex.
Most of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Most produce from GA is exported to Mexico. Therefore, some peaches are exported to Mexico.
A --m-> B --m-> C
____
A <-s-> C
This is NOT a valid conclusion; maybe, even though most USA peaches do come from GA, GA only produces 10% peaches and 90% other produce. So, those few, precious peaches stay in the US, while the rest is shipped out.
Ex.
Most of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Most of USA's peaches are exported to Mexico. Therefore, at least some of the peaches sent to Mexico are GA peaches.
My understanding is that Most before Most (A‑m→B‑m→C, Therefore: A←s→C) is not valid for two main reasons.
1. Most (51%-100%) includes all which means there is a world where you are making the much easier to understand all before most fallacy any time you say it.
Most (or all) NBA Basketball players are tall. Most tall people are not good at basketball. Therefore, some pro basketball players are not good at basketball INVALID
VS
Most NBA players are tall. ALL tall people are not good at basketball. Therefore, some pro basketball players are bad at basketball. VALID
2. You just lack enough information to bet your life on the fact that some of A are C. To use the above example, sure, some NBA basketball players might be not good at basketball, but I really doubt it. I would not bet my life on a 1v1 against the 'worst' player in the league.
You could come up with some crazy example of the third string guy who is only there because of who his dad is, or because of injuries, a player is not good right now... but you are bringing in a whole new set of premises that are no where in the presented argument.
TL/DR: Stop overthinking it, and accept that most can mean all. Don't think outside of the test question's box.
Most of America's almonds are grown in California.
Most produce from California is exported to Brazil.
Therefore, some almonds are exported to Brazil.
The problem here is that the premises don't guarantee the conclusion—just because "most" almonds are grown in California and "most" produce from California is exported to Brazil doesn't mean some almonds specifically are exported to Brazil. They could be eating the almonds domestically in CA and sending other produce to Brazil.
To make it valid you could say:
All of America's almonds are grown in California.
Most produce from California is exported to Brazil.
Therefore, some almonds are exported to Brazil.
Premise 1 guarantees that all almonds are grown in California.
Premise 2 states that most produce from California is exported to Brazil.
With these two premises, it's guaranteed that some almonds (because "most" produce from California is exported to Brazil) must be exported to Brazil.
OR another valid option:
All almonds grown in California are exported to Brazil.
@FranciscoLee I think it is correct because your drawing you conclusion from the fact the produce from the California element of the stem. A simpler way to look at it would be All implies most, so if all produce from Cali is almonds then also produce from California-m>almonds is also valid. So then just switch it around A-m>B and A-m>c
For me, this argument started to make some more sense when I drew it out in the diagram like so. As you may recall, some does not imply most. Therefore, some must be less than half. So out of my five As, two of them are left for the improper conclusion A ←s→ C.
Most A are B (A ‑m→ B) is illustrated by 3/5 As being Bs. Most B are C (B ‑m→ C) is illustrated by 2 of those 3 Bs being C. What remains is A ←s→ C, and the "some As" (the 2 remaining) cannot imply any C variable. Remember, the "some" As must be the 2 remaining of the 5 As, because most of them (3) were used to imply Bs.
I feel like this would make way more sense if we also were given a valid form of the argument.
So for this one, I think that would be:
Most of America's almonds are grown in California. Most of America's almonds are exported to Brazil. Therefore, some things (implied: produce) grown in California are exported to Brazil.
US almonds ‑m→ grown in California
US almonds ‑m→ exported to Brazil
_
grown in California ←s→ exported to Brazil
It may the case that some things [produce] grown in California are not exported to Brazil, and some things [produce] that are exported to Brazil are not grown in California.
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.
107 comments
Bro this is ridiculous why don't these lessons have videossss😣🤕😫
For me I think the big thing here wasn't quite the lawgic part of it, but the words "produce" and "almonds" aren't equivalent so to me I couldn't even make a chain
@anamat ? Almonds-m->grown cali
Grown cali-m->go to Brazil
There's the chain. forget the produce.
@GordonGianadda ooo this is very helpful thank you
@MorganWhite needed this, thank you
@MorganWhite Thank you! This was literally a lifesaver.
wait okay okay after sitting w this for like ten minutes i think i get it. most almonds are grown in cali. most cali produce is exported to brazil. produce does NOT have to include almonds. cali produce can be avocados, apples, cherries, corn, wheat, blah blah blah and yes it COULD include almonds MAYBE but almonds also could be the ONE THING that is not included in "most" of cali's produce.
i appreciate the strategy of "lawgic" for the harder questions but as a writer/reader i sometimes find it much easier to think it through with words rather than symbols. the formula is nice, but it gets a little too "math-y" for me lol
@hannahhjh This saved me, thank you! I agree having the examples written more thoroughly like you've done is extremely helpful.
@hannahhjh same, it's hard for me to translate to lawgic then back to english quick enough to meet the time limits for questions. the equation aspect helped in the earlier lessons but as they're getting more complicated, the symbols are confusing me more.
So to have a vaild conclusion would we need to say:
Most of America's almonds are grown in California. Most Almonds grown in California are exported to Brazil. Therefore some almonds are exported to Brazil.
?
@besrawi I think it would be: Most of America's almonds are grown in California. Most of America's almonds are exported to Brazil. Therefore some of California's almonds are exported to Brazil. The difference is that in the first sentence you are talking about America's almonds and in the second you are talking about the almonds grown in California. But I could be wrong
@Disney Hmm I think the phrasing we would need to make it am airtight valid argument would be: Most of America's almonds are grown in California. All of California's produce is exported to Brazil. Therefore, some of America's almonds are exported to Brazil. This would follow Formal Argument #5, "most before all." That way, it is a guarantee that at least some of America's almonds are exported to Brazil.
I do think your proposed answer would still make a valid argument though. If America produced 10 almonds, and 6 of them were grown in California, and most of America's almonds are exported to Brazil, at least one almond grown in California will end up in Brazil. I'm really curious to see what a 7Sage tutor has to say about this, because your example is really throwing me LOL (because I think it's valid).
I grasp the concept more with video lectures I'm not sure why this isn't the case for this giant section.
I wish these had videos they really help me understand better
Wait a sec. How is A most B, A most C different than a split most statement that had a valid conclusion of some B's are C's?
@ChristinaCorbo oops misread that as no valid conclusion but it says it is valid they are the same thing. Nevermind.
I've never been more confused and frustrated in my life. none of this makes sense and all the arguments seem valid to me ;(
@SarahHolmes754 i get caught up in the words a lot, but drawing triple venn diagrams really helps me lol. a lot of the invalid arguments of this flaw section of the curriculum is based on the fact that the "B" bucket could be huge. Therefore, if only "some" or "most" of B are C, A could have a real good chance of never being in C, which is why those conclusions are invalid.
Like I think it's easy to understand intuitively what is happening here, I just feel I some sort of drilling for it to actually become relevant to me
I get it, the trap is that
A -m-> B
B -m-> C
A -s- C
A: America's almonds
B: Produce from California
C: Exported to Brazil
When it should be like this instead
A -m-> B
A -m-> C
B -s- C
So
Most of America's almonds are a product of California
Most of America's almonds are exported to Brazil
Some product of California is exported to Brazil
There is a grammatical error in the argument here. Produce is a mass noun. It needs a singular verb. This should read: "Most produce from California is exported to Brazil."
No videos??
Is it wrong for me to be critical of thinking why produce should be only meaning almonds?
I get that context wise it should be referring to almonds, but to me the logic makes more sense if I don't confine it to almonds
So pretty much its invalid because while there's the chance some almonds are exported to Brazil from CA it cant be proven with the info we were given, so saying yes or no would just be a 50/50 guess?
I need videos ;.;
@Heidi I agree!
I think the bucket analogy might help here - but someone let me know if this is more confusing.
Say we have 4 of A, B, and C. If 3/4 As are in the B bucket, and 3/4 Bs are in the C bucket, SOME As being in C is not super likely. Maybe a few, but the boundary for some is greater than few. You could say "at least a few As are in C" and that would make more sense, but not "some" because that's not necessarily true.
Example: Most hummingbirds are brightly colored. Most brightly colored animals are poisonous. Therefore, some hummingbirds are poisonous.
Discarding intuition, we don't know that some hummingbirds are poisonous just because most brightly colored animals are. Hummingbirds are a smaller set than "poisonous brightly colored animals". We don't know if these two sets overlap in any meaningful way.
Most A are B, which means that some A are not B. If some As don't have B. Then how can you validly assume that some A has C.
@Saint this was actually really helpful, thanks!
Ok here is my attempt:
Most slinky are toys, and most toys (these days) are electronic; therefore some slinky are electronic
@AlizaGGG This is a lot better than the example given in the course
Trap 6: Attempting to chain "Most"s
Remember: When two "most" statements are chained together, there are no valid conclusions to be drawn.
The ONLY instance in which two "most" claims can work together to draw a conclusion is when two "most" arrows come from the same set
A -m-> C
A -m-> B
____
C <-s-> B
Ex.
Most of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Most produce from GA is exported to Mexico. Therefore, some peaches are exported to Mexico.
A --m-> B --m-> C
____
A <-s-> C
This is NOT a valid conclusion; maybe, even though most USA peaches do come from GA, GA only produces 10% peaches and 90% other produce. So, those few, precious peaches stay in the US, while the rest is shipped out.
Ex.
Most of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Most of USA's peaches are exported to Mexico. Therefore, at least some of the peaches sent to Mexico are GA peaches.
@JamieAAbrams
Continued:
USAp -m-> GA
USAp -m-> Mx
____
GA <-s-> Mx
This IS a valid conclusion
@JamieAAbrams I love your explanation because it shows how the verbiage should be for the statement to be valid. Thanks for the explanation!
My understanding is that Most before Most (A‑m→B‑m→C, Therefore: A←s→C) is not valid for two main reasons.
1. Most (51%-100%) includes all which means there is a world where you are making the much easier to understand all before most fallacy any time you say it.
Most (or all) NBA Basketball players are tall. Most tall people are not good at basketball. Therefore, some pro basketball players are not good at basketball INVALID
VS
Most NBA players are tall. ALL tall people are not good at basketball. Therefore, some pro basketball players are bad at basketball. VALID
2. You just lack enough information to bet your life on the fact that some of A are C. To use the above example, sure, some NBA basketball players might be not good at basketball, but I really doubt it. I would not bet my life on a 1v1 against the 'worst' player in the league.
You could come up with some crazy example of the third string guy who is only there because of who his dad is, or because of injuries, a player is not good right now... but you are bringing in a whole new set of premises that are no where in the presented argument.
TL/DR: Stop overthinking it, and accept that most can mean all. Don't think outside of the test question's box.
there are so many rules/reversal rules. Its overwhelming to distinguish them all
@kianamalek646
"It's overwhelming to distinguish them at the moment"
#feedback for all these invalid example I would like to see them turned into valid examples to better understand the formal arguments
Hoping this helps!
Most of America's almonds are grown in California.
Most produce from California is exported to Brazil.
Therefore, some almonds are exported to Brazil.
The problem here is that the premises don't guarantee the conclusion—just because "most" almonds are grown in California and "most" produce from California is exported to Brazil doesn't mean some almonds specifically are exported to Brazil. They could be eating the almonds domestically in CA and sending other produce to Brazil.
To make it valid you could say:
All of America's almonds are grown in California.
Most produce from California is exported to Brazil.
Therefore, some almonds are exported to Brazil.
Premise 1 guarantees that all almonds are grown in California.
Premise 2 states that most produce from California is exported to Brazil.
With these two premises, it's guaranteed that some almonds (because "most" produce from California is exported to Brazil) must be exported to Brazil.
OR another valid option:
All almonds grown in California are exported to Brazil.
Most almonds in America are grown in California.
Therefore, some almonds are exported to Brazil.
@liz.fenton10 Isn't this invalid because of "all before most"
"even if we drop everything from A set to B set, when the most scoops of members from B to C, it may or may not capture any As"
@bananerr I agree that even if we change the "Most" to "All" it still wouldn't be a valid argument.
My attempt would be:
All produce from California is almonds.
Most produce from California is exported to Brazil.
Some produce exported to Brazil are almonds.
sounds awkward but I'm hoping this is a valid argument!
@tortellinibrain
produce from California>almonds
produce from California-m-> Brazil
-------------
Produce from Brazil <s> almonds
hahah a bit confusing to figure this one out
the form would look like
A>B
A-m->C
C<s>B ?
@FranciscoLee I think it is correct because your drawing you conclusion from the fact the produce from the California element of the stem. A simpler way to look at it would be All implies most, so if all produce from Cali is almonds then also produce from California-m>almonds is also valid. So then just switch it around A-m>B and A-m>c
Conc: B<s>C
Thus making it a valid conclusion.
Can someone explain this more please I'm confused as to why most before most works when split but not together :(
For me, this argument started to make some more sense when I drew it out in the diagram like so. As you may recall, some does not imply most. Therefore, some must be less than half. So out of my five As, two of them are left for the improper conclusion A ←s→ C.
Most A are B (A ‑m→ B) is illustrated by 3/5 As being Bs. Most B are C (B ‑m→ C) is illustrated by 2 of those 3 Bs being C. What remains is A ←s→ C, and the "some As" (the 2 remaining) cannot imply any C variable. Remember, the "some" As must be the 2 remaining of the 5 As, because most of them (3) were used to imply Bs.
A → B → C
A ←s→?
A → B
A ←s→?
A → B → C
I hope this helps!
I feel like this would make way more sense if we also were given a valid form of the argument.
So for this one, I think that would be:
Most of America's almonds are grown in California. Most of America's almonds are exported to Brazil. Therefore, some things (implied: produce) grown in California are exported to Brazil.
US almonds ‑m→ grown in California
US almonds ‑m→ exported to Brazil
_
grown in California ←s→ exported to Brazil
It may the case that some things [produce] grown in California are not exported to Brazil, and some things [produce] that are exported to Brazil are not grown in California.
If this is wrong, let me know!