Because many implies some due to the fact that some means at least one, it must be true that some of a thing is a valid inference to many of that thing. Most also validly implies some for similar reasons. But many cannot validly imply most because of how subset and superset are viewed for their relationships. The idea that there is many of something means its lower boundary (at least 3 or more) falls outside of the superset of most where its lowest boundary encompasses 51% or more of that thing. If it was entirely encompassed by the superset, then it would be valid to imply many→most. Most implies many because it does encompass its entire range of boundaries.

It all has to do with the fact that you can equate many to some as a falsehood to better see the relationship between them. Just because you have a large amount of something "many," it doesn't imply that you have most of that thing. The most relationship indicates a proportion of something, whereas many only has to be 3 or more. Few as a quantifier means some, but not many and typically implies "most not." You can't equate many and few with each other.

I like to use the example: Many people love the color blue. If many people love blue, then it is valid to say that some people like blue because there is at least 1 person that likes blue. It wouldn't make sense to say that because many people like blue, then most people like blue too due to the fact that "most" would mean that 51% of people like blue. We only know that at least 3 people like blue with the "many" quantifier. It must be true that some people like blue, but it COULD BE TRUE that most people like blue. For your diagrams, I think the one on the right is correct. If you still need more help, I can try to come up with more examples that may work better for you. Quantifier relationships are difficult and super easy to miss little changes, so I completely understand not quite getting it. I still struggle with it at times. lol

Because many implies some due to the fact that some means at least one, it must be true that some of a thing is a valid inference to many of that thing. Most also validly implies some for similar reasons. But many cannot validly imply most because of how subset and superset are viewed for their relationships. The idea that there is many of something means its lower boundary (at least 3 or more) falls outside of the superset of most where its lowest boundary encompasses 51% or more of that thing. If it was entirely encompassed by the superset, then it would be valid to imply many→most. Most implies many because it does encompass its entire range of boundaries.

It all has to do with the fact that you can equate many to some as a falsehood to better see the relationship between them. Just because you have a large amount of something "many," it doesn't imply that you have most of that thing. The most relationship indicates a proportion of something, whereas many only has to be 3 or more. Few as a quantifier means some, but not many and typically implies "most not." You can't equate many and few with each other.

I like to use the example: Many people love the color blue. If many people love blue, then it is valid to say that some people like blue because there is at least 1 person that likes blue. It wouldn't make sense to say that because many people like blue, then most people like blue too due to the fact that "most" would mean that 51% of people like blue. We only know that at least 3 people like blue with the "many" quantifier. It must be true that some people like blue, but it COULD BE TRUE that most people like blue. For your diagrams, I think the one on the right is correct. If you still need more help, I can try to come up with more examples that may work better for you. Quantifier relationships are difficult and super easy to miss little changes, so I completely understand not quite getting it. I still struggle with it at times. lol

I still don't understand how we can keep a wrong answer journal during blind review if we have no idea what the correct answer is and if we got it right to begin with. I know it isn't the best practice to immediately look at the answers, but how are you even supposed to know what you got wrong and that you need to review it unless we look at the answers? It makes more sense to flag the question, do blind review, look at the answers and break down what you do/don't understand and then mark that question in the journal for the initial wrong answer and your explanation for the correct one. I've noticed others have similar questions and would like a clearer answer on how to properly conduct blind review in the way it is set up currently. #feedback #help

I am pretty sure that schools will see that you're registered for another LSAT in the CAS report and will hold your application until the score is released and part of your overall report. They will look at what you have right now, but will not make any decisions until the other score has been released. I was told this by an admission's representative after the same question was asked. You have to specify to the schools which score you want applied and if you don't then your application will be held until the final score is on your CAS report. I hope this helps! You can also reach out to admissions at the schools you're applying to and ask what their policy is for LSAT scores released after an application is submitted.

Thank you so much!! I'm glad my comments were helpful. I'm always happy to assist my fellow law school peers in any way that I can!

According to this passage, I can infer that many people in our judicial system are neck deep in bullshit.

It's comforting to know that JY has the same internal thought process as I do when reading a passage that has unfamiliar components. I constantly sit there and just stare at the screen asking myself what the heck did I just read. Lol

This was soooooo helpful omg!!

Both conditions have to be satisfied to validly draw the conclusion of overall success. The last sentence tells us that only one of the sufficient conditions (protecting individual liberty) is satisfied for the political administration in question. What we know to be true is that both are needed to be overall successful so all that is left is for the economic success to be present in order to trigger the necessary condition.

What answer choice B is saying is that: Government intervention in the free market is justified only when it "has been shown to have few if any significant harmful effects." When B is filled into the missing piece, it creates the conclusion I indicated in the first sentence. This conclusion is incorrect because it is missing the aspect of "not intervening at all" that is used in the medicine analogy. The analogy is key to getting the correct answer on this question. Essentially what B is stating is that the government should only intervene in the free market when that intervention doesn't cause issues that weren't present before just like when medication is prescribed. But what is missing is that comparison used between taking medicine and not taking anything at all for the correct answer choice analogizing government intervention being necessary if it doesn't cause major problems compared to no government intervention at all. I apologize if this is a bit confusing, but I am happy to try and explain further!

Hi there! I am trying to find this wrong answer journal you are talking about, but cannot find it anywhere. Is there something you need to do after the drill to save the wrong answers you got? I went to the notes section and scrolled to the bottom where it says Question Notes, but am unsure if that is the same thing. Thank you!

I think this is what makes the test so difficult. There are tips and tricks that work most of the time, but the test writers are banking on us not being able to recognize the subtly of certain arguments. We can't wholeheartedly rely on the usual patterns that are indicated in these lessons because as this question illustrates, the test writers are going to purposefully disguise easy questions behind the things they tell us not to worry about. It's pretty crappy that they do this and tell us we never have to worry about it and then go and do it, negatively impacting people's scores. I have learned that you cannot fully trust what the test writers and prep test materials say anymore and it's truly unfortunate. Because they do things like this on the exam, there really isn't a full proof method of studying. You just have to really understand logic and what makes an argument and not get tripped up when something looks really easy because most of the time it is and we're just doubting all the work we've done.

Damn, you explained this so well! I appreciate many of your comments on here:)

Of course! The comment function is incredibly helpful and I am glad I could help in some way.

I love your name. lol

Try and think of sufficient assumptions as being similar to most strongly supported or strengthening questions. The main purpose of these questions is to add in a missing piece that makes the overall argument stronger. Break down the stimulus as you're practicing and try to figure out what pieces connect and what doesn't. The part that doesn't connect will more often than not be what you need to focus on in the answers. Try and make sure you understand what the premises and conclusion is first before moving on to breaking them down into what information is provided. Once you can identify what the purpose of the argument is supposed to be (the conclusion), then it becomes easier to pick out all the connected pieces. Another helpful tool is to really make sure you recognize formal argument structures. If the stimulus follows one of the argument patterns we learned such as some before all, two mosts, etc., then you can also look to the answers to see if any of them add to the formal argument structure to make it a valid argument. Sufficient assumption and necessary assumption questions are definitely the most difficult to understand and consistently get right, in my opinion. I hope this helps put you in the right direction a little bit!

I don't think there generally is a rule about the number of different types of questions required to be in each section. There's definitely been previous exams where there were multiple necessary assumption questions in a row and then a sufficient assumption question right after to throw you off and confuse the question stem. But I could definitely be wrong for the newer tests!

There is a function on the exam next to each answer choice that allows you to cross them out in order to keep track of your thought process. Try using it in practice tests to get the hang of it for actual test day. It's a little eye symbol (I am pretty sure) next to the answer that turns the whole thing gray and keeps the other answers as normal text.

In the stimulus, the first sentence (the conclusion) talks about the nation being competitive, but doesn't say anything about the type of competitiveness that is. Only the last sentence adds the modifier of economic competitiveness. But in the explanations, the economic competitiveness is inserted into the first sentence's meaning. I am confused how the explanation is saying that the first sentence is expressing that pushing rigorous curricula to make the nation more economically competitive is a bad thing when it does not say anything about ECONOMIC competitiveness, just competitiveness as a whole. To me, I would interpret that as the author expressing any type of competitiveness in the first sentence, but then modifies it to be a completely different type of competitiveness that was originally the main intent. I see the argument as not really flowing very well because the author is not maintaining the same meaning throughout. Am I incorrect in thinking this or just overthinking it? #help #feedback

I noticed a typo towards the end of the lesson! "It says that the pather’s current habitat has reached capacity." Panther is misspelled.

It's referring to using the technique "it is not the case that" to negate the meaning of the statement. If you add the negation to the statement and it makes it so it is not true based on the info of the stimulus, then you've identified the correct answer. The purpose of negating a Must Be True statement will allow you to identify what is needed to be true that can be added to the stimulus without making the entire argument fall apart. When the argument falls apart due to the negation, you've found the right answer.

Hello! I think I found a mistake. "Answer Choice (E) should help children learn the consequences of being bad. (E) isn’t exactly stated explicitly, but it’s very strongly applied". Is it supposed to say implied instead of applied? #feedback

Yes! This is a very helpful tool to use when answer choices are tricky. It's why there's such a big lesson on grammar because it really is that important on the test. Recognizing the relationship these words have in logic in terms of support and conditionality will significantly improve your ability to catch completely unsupported or weakly supported statements.

Because there's a ton of statistically significant empirical evidence to conclude that smoking CAN cause lung cancer, you can validly conclude that smoking is a cause of lung cancer. But the caveat to that is the word "can." You cannot say with 100% certainty that smoking WILL cause cancer because there are many instances we know where people smoke like chimney's but never have any cancer related issues. All we can say with certainty is that smoking is directly correlated with getting lung cancer. For the LSAT, we aren't provided with all that real world evidence and have to remember to stay in that particular stimuli's world and only judge the argument by the evidence and language provided.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but if you're provided with two things being correlated as a true statement, it is reasonable to suggest that there may be causation present, but it is not guaranteed. To say that some thing (A) being present caused (B) the effect on the LSAT, you are evaluating the truth of the premises to say that they are reasonable enough to conclude that causation is present. A lot of the times you'll be given a causal argument with a flaw where you're inserting the missing premise needed to strengthen or weaken the reasonableness of the argument.

Causation is a super tricky concept to understand, but if you follow the next few lessons where you break the argument down with the four possible hypotheses, it helps to understand how to rule out answer choices and create strong or weak causal arguments. I hope this helps and I can explain more with other types of examples if needed!

There's actually a few typos I noticed after re-reading! "Lucky for us, researchers have known about this pitfall and have come up with a solution: administering something that looks, feels, tastes, etc. like a drug but it actually inert."

"Let's again say that the results are that Group 1 experiences significant pain reduction but this time, Group 2 does as well. There is no difference between the two group's experiences of signification pain reduction." #feedback