"People with perfect pitch are not more likely than others to make sure that their children receive musical training."
If this was a real sentence in an LSAT problem, I would instantly interpret it to mean that neither perfect-pitch parents nor non-perfect-pitch parents would have any more likelihood of getting their child involved in musical training. But this sentence leaves the possibility open that non-perfect-pitch parents could be more likely to secure the training.
You would need more context from other sentences in the text to make this determination.
for the "People should feel no more responsible for economic disaster than for military invasions."
Why is it it either, people should feel just as responsible for both, or people should feel more responsible for military invasions and not equal to or less instead of more?
@EvanNabil the key phrase is "no more". Think of it like this: X is no larger than Y. From all the information we have, we can only conclude the following: X is either smaller than Y or X is equal to Y. X can't be bigger than Y. Therefore X is less than or equal to Y. Y is greater than or equal to X. Replace X with "economic disaster" and Replace Y with "military invasions."
@charmaine189 I think your second bullet point is still correct, as it's the opposite statement of "People should feel more responsible for military invasions". However, I think this creates more confusion than needed.
Since the "quality of comparison" uses the phrase moreresponsible instead of less responsible, I think it's easier to stay in line with the more side of things.
Just my two cents. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
would it be wrong to say that the subject is just less likely, or does it always have to be that the opposite of the subject is more likely (or equal) For example, for the perfect pitch, one could you say that people with perfect pitch are less likely to take their children to get musical training or does it have to be people with non-perfect pitch are more likely
under. " lets review section", when it says there may not be a clear winner, is that saying that it could either be A being equal to b, but B also possibly being more but not a scenario where one is the clear winner.
yes, my understanding is that there is might not be a clear winner because a could be equal to b or a could be less than be, and we are not able to decide which one wine because we do not have all of the facts necessary to draw a conclusion.
Something to think about with negative comparatives that will help is to understand the theory behind negative comparatives. Why would an author of a passage or paragraph not just use a simple comparative statement without a negation? Well, it is most likely due to the context. Maybe we expect the comparative statement go a certain way so therefore, we can better see the authors emphasis on how it does not go a certain way by inserting the word "not." For example, take the last example above. We would expect that people with perfect pitch would more likely ensure their kids to receive musical training as compared to people without perfect pitch. The author uses the word not to say, "hey whatever you may have assumed, it is not the case."
Take the first example: Tom is not taller than Athena.
Maybe we are given a bunch of information of how Tom is stronger than Athena, Tom is better at basketball than Athena, Tom has taller parents than Athena, and so on... But, rather then the author just saying the reverse without an emphasis "Athena is taller than Tom," what the author can do is say "hey look you know that Tom has all these qualities that are more than Athena, but guess what? Tom is not taller than Athena!"
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.
31 comments
All men were created equal.
People should feel no more responsible for economic disasters than for military invasions.
It is like saying:
Anna should feel no more worry for her work than for her upcoming exam.
That means, Anna should worry equally about both her work and upcoming exam.
Or if anything,
Anna should worry more about her upcoming exam than her work.
Note to self:
"People with perfect pitch are not more likely than others to make sure that their children receive musical training."
If this was a real sentence in an LSAT problem, I would instantly interpret it to mean that neither perfect-pitch parents nor non-perfect-pitch parents would have any more likelihood of getting their child involved in musical training. But this sentence leaves the possibility open that non-perfect-pitch parents could be more likely to secure the training.
You would need more context from other sentences in the text to make this determination.
i've definitely seen these before while drilling, and i finally understand where i went wrong. super helpful!
Is this considered negation?
So I have an example
Androids are no better than iPhones at taking photos
So this can either mean that
Androids and iPhones are equally good at taking photos
OR
Androids are worse than iPhones at taking photos
to clarify, there are no drills provided for the grammar section within this curriculum?
@Raisethescore You'll see a few skill-builders later on in the module.
A complicated hotel security system is no more effective in preventing losses by theft than a simple one.
A v. B
a complicated Hotel Security System vs A simple one
What is the relationship comparing to?
Which one is no more effective in preventing losses by theft?
Winner?
A simple one.
A complicated hotel security system is either less effective or equally effective at preventing theft than a simple one.
People should feel no more responsible for economic disasters than for military invasions.
A v. B
Economic Disasters v. Military Invasions.
What is the relationship comparing to?
People should feel no more responsible.
Winner?
People should feel no more responsible for economic disasters vs. military invasions.
The responsibility for Economic disasters are equal or less than military invasions.
People should feel the same amount of responsibility for both OR more responsibility for military invasions.
“Does this tell me an exact position, or just a boundary?”
If it’s a boundary, don’t over-infer. The comparison may not have a clear winner. Be aware of the possibility of a tie between A and B.
Negative comparatives give ceilings and floors, not locations.
for the "People should feel no more responsible for economic disaster than for military invasions."
Why is it it either, people should feel just as responsible for both, or people should feel more responsible for military invasions and not equal to or less instead of more?
am I making any sense?
@EvanNabil the key phrase is "no more". Think of it like this: X is no larger than Y. From all the information we have, we can only conclude the following: X is either smaller than Y or X is equal to Y. X can't be bigger than Y. Therefore X is less than or equal to Y. Y is greater than or equal to X. Replace X with "economic disaster" and Replace Y with "military invasions."
Is there ever a time in comparatives when B could come before A?
This cleared up exactly what I was struggling with on the drills. I'm really enjoying the foundation portion of the study guide.
For example 2, I landed on to equally reasonable possibilities.
People should feel just as responsible for both.
People should feel less responsible for economic disasters.
Is the second bullet wrong or does it mean the same as "People should feel more responsible for military invasions?"
@charmaine189 wondering the same thing!
@charmaine189 I think your second bullet point is still correct, as it's the opposite statement of "People should feel more responsible for military invasions". However, I think this creates more confusion than needed.
Since the "quality of comparison" uses the phrase more responsible instead of less responsible, I think it's easier to stay in line with the more side of things.
Just my two cents. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
@CharlesWagener This was a very helpful analysis/tip you provided. Thanks so much.
Does not more likely = less likely or neutral in this case?
@Sophiepie Yes, I believe it's 'less likely' or 'equally likely'
helpful formula for quickly making sense of negative comparatives
would it be wrong to say that the subject is just less likely, or does it always have to be that the opposite of the subject is more likely (or equal) For example, for the perfect pitch, one could you say that people with perfect pitch are less likely to take their children to get musical training or does it have to be people with non-perfect pitch are more likely
I think as long as the content expresses the same thing. Similarly to 1 > y and y < 1 both mean the same thing.
Would it be fair to use "Negate Necessary" translations with these statements?
under. " lets review section", when it says there may not be a clear winner, is that saying that it could either be A being equal to b, but B also possibly being more but not a scenario where one is the clear winner.
yes, my understanding is that there is might not be a clear winner because a could be equal to b or a could be less than be, and we are not able to decide which one wine because we do not have all of the facts necessary to draw a conclusion.
Noticing that the "winner" tends to be towards the end of the clause, or "B"
Is this the norm?
#help (Added by Admin)
I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps more likely but not a set rule
I agree
Something to think about with negative comparatives that will help is to understand the theory behind negative comparatives. Why would an author of a passage or paragraph not just use a simple comparative statement without a negation? Well, it is most likely due to the context. Maybe we expect the comparative statement go a certain way so therefore, we can better see the authors emphasis on how it does not go a certain way by inserting the word "not." For example, take the last example above. We would expect that people with perfect pitch would more likely ensure their kids to receive musical training as compared to people without perfect pitch. The author uses the word not to say, "hey whatever you may have assumed, it is not the case."
Take the first example: Tom is not taller than Athena.
Maybe we are given a bunch of information of how Tom is stronger than Athena, Tom is better at basketball than Athena, Tom has taller parents than Athena, and so on... But, rather then the author just saying the reverse without an emphasis "Athena is taller than Tom," what the author can do is say "hey look you know that Tom has all these qualities that are more than Athena, but guess what? Tom is not taller than Athena!"
Just a couple things to think about.
@prestonbigley759 Such a good explanation, thank you!