Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 26 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
How would you translate this?: Not all white women are Beckys, but all Beckys are white women.
SLP_futureJD
Alum Member
I'm hesitant to post this, but it's driving me crazy, so here goes:
During a study break, I went down a rabbit hole and came across this article: https://www.theroot.com/the-five-types-of-becky-1798543210
Now I'm sitting here translating this and feeling confused. I'm also wondering if I'll ever be able to read anything again without translating it to lawgic.
Obviously I understand the point of this statement, but my brain that just reviewed the existential quantifier lessons cannot make sense of this: Not all white women are Beckys, but all Beckys are white women.
Translation:
Some White women are not Beckys
BUT
If you're a Becky, then you're a white woman. (Beckys --> White women)
I'm envisioning a circle representing "white women" world with a smaller circle inside of it representing "Beckys" world. Where I'm thrown off is that "some" indicates an intersection relationship and my representation seems to be more of an all encompassing relationship.
Thoughts?
Comments
The logical opposite of "all" is "some not".
(All) B --> WW
WW some /B
https://7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-all-statements/?ss_completed_lesson=1055
haha this is awesome, and it made my day
It’s the same theoretically as saying:
Not all insects are ants
But
All ants are insects
Not all cars are fords mustangs
But all ford mustangs are cars
The superset (cars/insects) is comprised of more things than the subset (ford mustangs/ants.) This means that the superset is/ has more than that subset. The LSAT plays with a similar (although not precisely the same) concept with the following pattern:
Most As are Bs
But most Bs are not As
This has come up in mirror forms on two recent exams.
Not all cars are fords mustangs (in the car universe there are other things that comprise "car" besides Ford Mustangs)
But all ford mustangs are cars (yet the entirety of the set of ford mustangs is in the set of cars.)
I hope these exams help
David
@BinghamtonDave PERFECT! That's exactly what I was looking for. The superset/subset concept makes sense but I wasn't sure exactly where the "some" came in. In what context did it come up on recent exams? On LR or LG? Thank you for your help!
"Not all white women are Beckys, but all Beckys are white women."
White Women ---some---> /Becky
Becky ----> White Woman
It might not be recent, but PrepTest 55 Section 1 Question 25 is a pure example of these sorts of concepts. It will definitely come up again on recent tests.
@"Rigid Designator" THANK YOU! That's exactly what I was looking for- an example of how that logic would be used on the test. Thanks so much!
@samantha.ashley92 Thank you for verifying my translation! I appreciate it!
@theLSATdreamer so glad I could provide you with some studying entertainment
I knew I could remember another I'd done that's more recent... PrepTest 77 Section 2 Question 23!
https://media0.giphy.com/media/QgixZj4y3TwnS/giphy.gif
19.4.11 is another one that immediately comes to mind. This is literally everywhere, so just keep an eye out and you'll find tons of them. Its ubiquity makes it a really promising area to pursue. If you were missing these questions before, correcting this could lead to a substantial score increase. Go hunting for it and you'll find it!
@"Cant Get Right" Thanks so much! I've just started PTing, so I'll be on the lookout for them.
I was hesitant to even open this because of the title but to echo what Dave has said, it's basically a relationship of superset and subset.
White girls being the superset and Becky being a subset. It's similar to the whole "All jedi use the force. Luke is a jedi. Therefore, Luke uses the force."
In this case, Jedi is the superset. Luke is a subset of Jedi. However, we can't really say "All Jedi's are Luke" because Yoda and Obi-Wan are also jedi's and they are not Luke. So some Jedi's are not Luke. Although depending on how loyal you are to the movies, Luke might very well be the last jedi... but that is a totally different can of worms!
It's important to know what is a superset and what is a subset because the LSAT uses this distinction quite often across different question-types. You should also know what the true logical opposites are (and whether that falls into a subset or superset) because they test you on that a lot.
For example, 'right' and 'not right' are logical opposites. 'Wrong' would be a subset of things that are 'not right'. So, we can say that everything that is wrong is not right. But we cannot say that everything that is not right is wrong because the group of not right consists of a lot more than things that are wrong. Ergo, not all things that are not right are wrong.
@keets993 I feel ya. I was hesitant to post it as I mentioned but I'm happy I did b/c it's brought up some really great answers from helpful 7Sagers such as yourself! Thanks for taking the time to respond. I also appreciate how you tied it to the Star Wars metaphor that popped up all through the CC. Best of luck to you!