Can anyone please explain to me why the lower bound for ‘some’ is 1 and not 2? Is there no distinction in logic between a singular instance of something occurring within a set vs it occurring at least twice? Isn't it fallacious to conclude that 'some' things in a set possess a certain attribute from the observation of a singular occurrence of that attribute within the set?

For example, the sentence ‘some unicorns are fluffy’ would seem to imply that there are at least two unicorns that are fluffy. Same with the ‘some’ mice living in my home’ example from the lessons on existential quantifiers. J.Y. concludes that if we know that there are 'some' mice in the house, or 'some' unicorns that are fluffy, then we know that there is at least 1 mouse in that house and at least 1 fluffy unicorn. However, the plural forms of the nouns - ‘unicorns’ and ‘mice’ - are used in both of these examples, which would imply more than 1 of each entity. In fact in most cases that I can think of, the word 'some' implies a plurality of the noun that follows it.

If there were 100 unicorns in the world and 99 of them weren’t fluffy while only 1 of them was, could we really accurately conclude that ‘some’ unicorns (again, plural) are fluffy from this singular instance of fluffiness? What if that unicorn was an anomaly and turns out to be the only fluffy unicorn in the history of unicorns?

#help