Would it be right if it was some As are Bs and some As are Cs, then some Bs are Cs. Or is it only right when it is most, because I can't assume there is overlap?
Wait so in thinking abt this one it's like saying 1 grown cali almond, 1 PRODUCE lable fruit tree = somehow this is an anomaly of this cali grown almond being the single produce fruit tree? The chances are low especially since they don't clarify it being specifically the almond but just produce in general.
Wait I think I might be getting it. Is it these arguments are weak because they're open to multiple interpretation. Such as earlier in the lesson, the connection between everyone who plays violin to specifically the ones in the philharmonic. Or the produce on being that produce could be other things such as Veggies and not Almonds? The working of Most or Some further weakens the argument but also the context to? Of making connection between two conditionals?
anyone else think that these reasonings are just lazy slop towards the end? Like yeah you can just take it face value without entirely understanding why but it definitely helps and its so lazy that its just: the previous lesson is stronger, so this is also invalid.
Would it be correct to say that theoretically there could be overlap between A and C, but there is no way to guarantee that? Like with the context of the test, we have to be 100% sure the two overlap. But that there isnt an 100% chance they wouldn't overlap? for both some before some and most before most?
@Mmagicss I think you're right, the key point is certainty vs possibility. In this case, it may be theoretically possible that A and C overlap, but there isn’t enough information to guarantee that they do. On a must-be-true question, we need something that is guaranteed based on the premises. In contrast, a strengthening question might allow an answer that introduces a plausible possibility, even if it isn’t logically guaranteed.
Circles are so helpful with these lessons. If you draw circles from the Most before Most lesson, you just pull A and C circles further out from B and see how invalid concl is still the case.
Some Before Some is just an even weaker version of Most Before Most.
My understanding: Almonds grown in California cannot be confirmed to be "produce in Cali.. that is designated as fruit". How would you know from "Some produce grown in California" applies to Almonds.
Thats like me saying:
Some Ferraris are made in Italy. Some cars manufactured in Italy are hypercars. Therefore, some Ferraris are considered hypercars.
That could be the case? But Lamborghini could make all the hypercars.
@Saint Tbh this comment is a bit confusing, but I think I get the basics of your concern.
"Could be true" is not a valid conclusion. It also could be false. On the LSAT LR sections, correct answers will be certainly correct, some wrong answers will be certainly wrong, and some wrong answers will be "could be wrong or could be correct"
@emmalc02 Let me give this a shot - let me know if this is totally wrong.
Every minute, around 260 babies are born around the world. Some of these newborns are premature - arriving earlier than the 3rd trimester or at the very start of the 3rd trimester. Some of these premature newborns have a rare condition called necrotizing enterocolitis. It follows that some newborns born every minute have necrotizing enterocolitis.
Thinking about this in terms of sets helps a bit - because it seems obvious to say "of course some freshly born babies have necrotizing enterocolitis, that's just common sense! that's like saying some babies will cry when they're born." However, we start from a very broad set (all newborns born within a minute, say 260), we narrow down to premature babies (say 100), and we further narrow down to babies with necrotizing enterocolitis (maybe 20 of those babies). 20/260 seems like a rather small number, and saying some may seem grossly inaccurate.
A valid argument may be: Every minute, around 260 babies are born around the world. Some of these newborns are premature - arriving earlier than the 3rd trimester or at the very start of the 3rd trimester. All of these babies are born before vital organ systems have a chance to fully develop. It follows that some newborns born every minute do not have fully developed organ systems.
This makes sense (I think) because you're saying all premature babies (100, going with the previous numbers here) have this condition, and 100/260 makes more sense to say "some".
I hope this makes sense and if I got any information wrong about premature babies, I apologize! I'm just rattling whatever information I remembered in my 10th grade anatomy class.
I think when it comes to dealing with uncertain quantifiers like some and most is just trying to come up with scenarios that would completely flip the script.
Most vegans are American, most Americans like milk. Does it follow that most vegans like milk?
Think about the most extreme example, given the statement, could it be the case that out of all the people who don't like milk, it just happens to be all the vegans? The prompt allows this possibility, therefore it does not follow.
Remember: When two "some" statements are chained together, there are no valid conclusions to be drawn.
Ex.
Some of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Some produce from GA is exported to Mexico. Therefore, some peaches are exported to Mexico.
USAp --s-> GA --s-> Mx
____
USAp <-s-> Mx
This is NOT a valid conclusion; maybe only 1 peach is grown per year, and therefore the "some" produce that's exported doesn't happen to include that peach.
I’d love videos for these to visualize. The lesson helps some for sure but I still feel lost applying the terms on the spot honestly. Is it a matter of just memorizing these rules would be best?
Hey! So I've been reviewing these flaw lessons since these are the questions I am getting wrong most frequently, and I was wondering if just memorizing these rules would be helpful. I somewhat understand why these are wrong depending on the context, but if I memorize these rules to look for key terms chained together would it be wrong to assume that I'd be able to get them right more frequently while saving time from reading the whole question?
This is the way I'm thinking about it so correct me if I'm wrong. Using the buckets visualization, we put some of A in some of B. Now some of B are in some of C but we don't know if the Bs that are in the C bucket hold some of the As.
It actually helped me to draw out the diagram for this one. A circle for A, Circle B intersecting A, and Circle C intersecting B. A and C don't have to intersect, so the conclusion from the Lawgic that A←s→C isn't valid. Works in my brain.
would we also be able to apply this diagram to the "most before most" lesson? Since two most arrows ‑m→ in the same chain would lead to no valid conclusion as well?
How are we identifying what is sufficient and necessary in these statements? It seems like we are just reading left to right.
English:
Some almonds are grown in California. Some produce grown in California is properly categorized as a fruit. Therefore, some almonds are properly categorized as a fruit.
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.
60 comments
having to teach myself without videos reminds me of teaching myself stats because it was offered online like broooooo
Would it be right if it was some As are Bs and some As are Cs, then some Bs are Cs. Or is it only right when it is most, because I can't assume there is overlap?
circle overlap A and B may not also overlap three ways with the overelap from B and C
Wait so in thinking abt this one it's like saying 1 grown cali almond, 1 PRODUCE lable fruit tree = somehow this is an anomaly of this cali grown almond being the single produce fruit tree? The chances are low especially since they don't clarify it being specifically the almond but just produce in general.
Wait I think I might be getting it. Is it these arguments are weak because they're open to multiple interpretation. Such as earlier in the lesson, the connection between everyone who plays violin to specifically the ones in the philharmonic. Or the produce on being that produce could be other things such as Veggies and not Almonds? The working of Most or Some further weakens the argument but also the context to? Of making connection between two conditionals?
anyone else think that these reasonings are just lazy slop towards the end? Like yeah you can just take it face value without entirely understanding why but it definitely helps and its so lazy that its just: the previous lesson is stronger, so this is also invalid.
Would it be correct to say that theoretically there could be overlap between A and C, but there is no way to guarantee that? Like with the context of the test, we have to be 100% sure the two overlap. But that there isnt an 100% chance they wouldn't overlap? for both some before some and most before most?
@Mmagicss I think you're right, the key point is certainty vs possibility. In this case, it may be theoretically possible that A and C overlap, but there isn’t enough information to guarantee that they do. On a must-be-true question, we need something that is guaranteed based on the premises. In contrast, a strengthening question might allow an answer that introduces a plausible possibility, even if it isn’t logically guaranteed.
Circles are so helpful with these lessons. If you draw circles from the Most before Most lesson, you just pull A and C circles further out from B and see how invalid concl is still the case.
Some Before Some is just an even weaker version of Most Before Most.
Where are the videos!!!! ='(
Starting to make more sense
I dont even like almonds
@ChadC this gave me a giggle
@ChadC thanks for making me laugh :)
My understanding: Almonds grown in California cannot be confirmed to be "produce in Cali.. that is designated as fruit". How would you know from "Some produce grown in California" applies to Almonds.
Thats like me saying:
Some Ferraris are made in Italy. Some cars manufactured in Italy are hypercars. Therefore, some Ferraris are considered hypercars.
That could be the case? But Lamborghini could make all the hypercars.
@Saint Tbh this comment is a bit confusing, but I think I get the basics of your concern.
"Could be true" is not a valid conclusion. It also could be false. On the LSAT LR sections, correct answers will be certainly correct, some wrong answers will be certainly wrong, and some wrong answers will be "could be wrong or could be correct"
[This comment was deleted.]
@emmalc02 Let me give this a shot - let me know if this is totally wrong.
Every minute, around 260 babies are born around the world. Some of these newborns are premature - arriving earlier than the 3rd trimester or at the very start of the 3rd trimester. Some of these premature newborns have a rare condition called necrotizing enterocolitis. It follows that some newborns born every minute have necrotizing enterocolitis.
Thinking about this in terms of sets helps a bit - because it seems obvious to say "of course some freshly born babies have necrotizing enterocolitis, that's just common sense! that's like saying some babies will cry when they're born." However, we start from a very broad set (all newborns born within a minute, say 260), we narrow down to premature babies (say 100), and we further narrow down to babies with necrotizing enterocolitis (maybe 20 of those babies). 20/260 seems like a rather small number, and saying some may seem grossly inaccurate.
A valid argument may be: Every minute, around 260 babies are born around the world. Some of these newborns are premature - arriving earlier than the 3rd trimester or at the very start of the 3rd trimester. All of these babies are born before vital organ systems have a chance to fully develop. It follows that some newborns born every minute do not have fully developed organ systems.
This makes sense (I think) because you're saying all premature babies (100, going with the previous numbers here) have this condition, and 100/260 makes more sense to say "some".
I hope this makes sense and if I got any information wrong about premature babies, I apologize! I'm just rattling whatever information I remembered in my 10th grade anatomy class.
I think when it comes to dealing with uncertain quantifiers like some and most is just trying to come up with scenarios that would completely flip the script.
Most vegans are American, most Americans like milk. Does it follow that most vegans like milk?
Think about the most extreme example, given the statement, could it be the case that out of all the people who don't like milk, it just happens to be all the vegans? The prompt allows this possibility, therefore it does not follow.
Some sour foods are candy,
some candy is chocolate
therefore some sour food is chocolate
Is this valid: A←s→B and A←s→C, therefore B←s→C.
@oliviapare123 No, because "some" can include just one. So, for example, imagine:
Group A contains three numbers: 1,2, and 3
Group B contains the number 1, so:
A ←s→ B
and Group C contains the number 2, so:
A ←s→ C
but, Groups B & C do not have any overlap, therefore B ←s→ C is invalid.
Trap 6: Attempting to chain "Some"s
Remember: When two "some" statements are chained together, there are no valid conclusions to be drawn.
Ex.
Some of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Some produce from GA is exported to Mexico. Therefore, some peaches are exported to Mexico.
USAp --s-> GA --s-> Mx
____
USAp <-s-> Mx
This is NOT a valid conclusion; maybe only 1 peach is grown per year, and therefore the "some" produce that's exported doesn't happen to include that peach.
just to check- you cannot draw a valid conclusion from this argument, right?
A‑m→B←s→C
Yes, as A‑m→B implies A←s→B. So you either write it as "A‑m→B" or "A←s→B" and it is logically the same.
I’d love videos for these to visualize. The lesson helps some for sure but I still feel lost applying the terms on the spot honestly. Is it a matter of just memorizing these rules would be best?
idky yall dont make videos showing clearly this flaw
#help
Hey! So I've been reviewing these flaw lessons since these are the questions I am getting wrong most frequently, and I was wondering if just memorizing these rules would be helpful. I somewhat understand why these are wrong depending on the context, but if I memorize these rules to look for key terms chained together would it be wrong to assume that I'd be able to get them right more frequently while saving time from reading the whole question?
Sorry if that made absolutely no sense btw lol :0
This is the way I'm thinking about it so correct me if I'm wrong. Using the buckets visualization, we put some of A in some of B. Now some of B are in some of C but we don't know if the Bs that are in the C bucket hold some of the As.
It actually helped me to draw out the diagram for this one. A circle for A, Circle B intersecting A, and Circle C intersecting B. A and C don't have to intersect, so the conclusion from the Lawgic that A←s→C isn't valid. Works in my brain.
would we also be able to apply this diagram to the "most before most" lesson? Since two most arrows ‑m→ in the same chain would lead to no valid conclusion as well?
This was so helpful Adam! I was having trouble visualizing this and your explanation was great. Thank you!
oh i like that
Wouldn’t it have been easier to just make a T-chart of invalid and valid formulas?
e.g.,
Invalid | Valid
S,S,S | M,M,S
A,M,S | M,A,S
A,S,S (lol) | S,A,S
#help
How are we identifying what is sufficient and necessary in these statements? It seems like we are just reading left to right.
English:
Some almonds are grown in California. Some produce grown in California is properly categorized as a fruit. Therefore, some almonds are properly categorized as a fruit.
Lawgic:
A ←s→ B ←s→ C
A ←s→ C
I don't think there is a sufficiency necessity relationship in "some" statements. They're bi-directional. One does not necessarily imply the other.