Can a NA answer have a "most" existential quantifier?

Moon10YG

I always get confused between the NA answers that states A most B and a subtle conditional (the correct answer). During the BR, I am able to correct myself by stating A most B strengthens but isn't required. But during the actual test, I find it quite difficult to choose between the two.

Therefore, I made a rule to myself: if the answer deals with "most," skip it.

Would that be a safe rule to apply for the NA questions?

I know that other existential quantifiers, such as some, can still be a valid NA answer, because negated some statement is absolute (None).

Thank you for your help.

Jonathan Wang

By using your rule of thumb, you're suggesting that there isn't a single instance ever where "A most B" would be necessary in order to draw a conclusion. Not a single one. What is your basis for such a bold claim?

Off the top of my head: The only things in this box are red balls and white balls, and otherwise there is no difference between them. Therefore, if I reach in blindly and pick a ball out of the box, I am more likely to get a red ball than a white ball.

Even if you have a rule of thumb (accurate or not), you still need to be able to negation test and verify that the response is correct. It sounds like you need to be working on your negation testing, not making up rules to avoid it.

If any of this were that simple, it'd be plastered all over the curriculum.

Nicole Hopkins

@"Jonathan Wang" said:
If any of this were that simple, it'd be plastered all over the curriculum.

WORD!

blah170blah

Don't take this mental shortcut, especially now that the newer tests have made NA answer choices way trickier.

blah170blah

Also, in general, you should view the qualifiers as training wheels for you to think about language in the way LSAT tests it. Other than that, the only way that'll 100% consistently ensure you get questions right is to understand the argument.

Moon10YG

Thank you very much... NA section is my weakest section by far, and I am having difficulty improving in this section.

The reason why I feel that the "most" qualifier is not a good candidate for a NA question is because negated form of "most" is not absolute, thus not being able to completely "wreck the argument."

Whereas some statements and basic conditionals, like "all" statements, can be negated in absolute terms, which will allow them to completely "wreck the argument." (A -> /B)

The reason why NA section is hardest for me is because I can't be 100% certain that the answer is correct, although other sections like SA, MBT, PSA, etc, I can be 100% certain.

For the NA questions, I always find myself doubting between a very subtle statement versus a strengthening statement, even if I use the negation test. The negated forms of both statements look like they wreck the argument...

I think I need more practice with denying the relationship and mastering the lawgic negation.

Moon10YG

I meant to write some negated = A -> /B and conditional negated = A and /B

Cant Get Right

@Moon10YG said:
negated form of "most" is not absolute

Isn’t “most” just >50%? So it’s negation would be ≤50%.

I see what you’re saying though. I wonder if there are situations where “many,” which can’t be clearly defined, could be problematic in this way.