Can I treat "few" as same as "some" and "many"?

hihihi9993

Remember in "Some and Most Relationship" lesson, JY mentions that "some" and "many" can be used interchangeably because they both have subjective definition. Then how about "few"? Can I treat "few" as same as "some" and "many" since it's also has a subjective definition? Then when I negate it it would be "none" correct? Thanks everyone!!!

Freddy_D

Few actually translates to mean that "some are" and "most are not" in lawgic

Ex: Few A's are B's

A <--s--> B

A --m--> B

https://7sage.com/lesson/few-statements-meaning-and-translation/

hihihi9993

Thank you... Then what do you think the negation of "few" would be? Some people say "most", but I don't think it's so because most is 51~100 whereas few is 2~49.

If few A are B
= (1) Some A are B
+ (2) Most A are not B

The negation would be
not [Few A are B]
not [(1)Some A are B + (2)Most A are not B]
not (Some A are B ) + not (Most A are /B)
(no A are B ) + (Half or less A are /B)
(A -> /B ) + (0~50% of A are /B)

Therefore, A -> /B AND 0~50% of A are /B ??????

I am so confused.... Can anyone help ?

Alex

@Freddy_D said:
Few actually translates to mean that "some are" and "most are not" in lawgic

Ex: Few A's are B's

A <--s--> B

A --m--> B

https://7sage.com/lesson/few-statements-meaning-and-translation/

My man Freddy D is correct. As Donald Trump said, great guy!

hihihi9993

@d931n027h said:
Thank you... Then what do you think the negation of "few" would be? Some people say "most", but I don't think it's so because most is 51~100 whereas few is 2~49.

If few A are B
= (1) Some A are B
+ (2) Most A are not B

The negation would be
not [Few A are B]
not [(1)Some A are B + (2)Most A are not B]
not (Some A are B ) + not (Most A are /B)
(no A are B ) + (Half or less A are /B)
(A -> /B ) + (0~50% of A are /B)

Therefore, A -> /B AND 0~50% of A are /B ??????

I am so confused.... Can anyone help ?

Then what about the negation...? Am I thinking correctly?

NotMyName

Then what about the negation...? Am I thinking correctly?

Ah I see the path you took to get there. You are definitely on the right track, except we don't need to negate both of those statements to reach a negation and in fact, when we do negate both ideas, we are left with redundancy as you have found with > Therefore, A -> /B AND 0~50% of A are /B ??????

A-->/B
50% or less of A-->/B

Negating "few" is an interesting task precisely because of the nature of "few". Unlike universal indicators, "some" statements, and "most" statements, "few" gives us a scope for what is and what isn't. In a universal indicator, we know that everything is (all As are Bs), so we don't need to worry about what isn't (As that aren't Bs) because it doesn't exist. "Some" statements are totally ambiguous except for the fact that we know at least 1 A is B, but that is all we know. And "most" statements are slightly more descriptive in that we know that lower-bound begins at 51, but that's all we know. I am thinking of "few" in terms of Lawgic so that:

Few-->A some B
and
Few-->A -most-> /B

Because "few" is a compound statement in that it is comprised of a "some" and a "most" statement, we have some options.

1) Now we could say "no As are Bs" and that would wipe out the whole idea that "Few As are Bs". That is quick and easy. We are simply negating the "some" statement.

2) We could also say that "at the most, half of As are not Bs". That would negate the "most" statement because if we have 100 As, then the maximum number of those that could be /Bs are 50 and therefore it is never the case that "most As are Bs". Perhaps a cleaner way of saying this is "at least half of As are Bs".

The two options above allow for different possible worlds and a proper negation will capture all possible worlds. Usually, we strive for a binary split would everything falls under wither the statement or it's negation. Here, we two negations in addition to the original statement. I do believe that these three ideas capture all possibilities.

I am thinking all of this out loud so if someone disagrees, please let me know. I don't see any other possible negations and this makes sense to me.

@d931n027h Was that helpful? lol I hope so!

akistotle

In terms of questions on the LSAT, I think it's fine to think the negation of "few" as "most."

Few are A = Some are A, most are not A
Few dogs are evil = Some dogs are evil, but most dogs are not evil.

Negation
Few are not A = Some are not A, most are A
Some dogs are not evil, but most dogs are evil.

For example, J.Y.'s explanation of PT44.S2.Q13 at 4:31 (https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-13/) says:

Very serious affair
Few people are going to show up unless we give them free booze.

/(free booze) --> (few people show up)
/(free booze) --> /(most people show up)

/(Few people show up) --> (free booze)
(Most people show up) --> (free booze)

hihihi9993

Thank you @"Alex Divine", @jkatz1488 , and @akistotle !!!

Sharon Rema

"Few" does have a subjective definition but isn't the same as "some" and "many." Think of it this way: most is to all as few is to some. Negating "few" doesn't mean "none"; it means "not few," which could imply "many" or "some."

Hope this helps!