Comments

• 2 Likes

  AA114211 Member

  February 2021 edited February 2021 39 karma

  You have the right approach. This is a tough one. I tried it when I saw your question here because it looked interesting. So I almost looked at this like a LG sequencing.

  We KNOW [oldest to youngest] T > M > D.

  Then, we know MOST S > M.

  This means we're looking at T/S > M > D/S.

  Where more S are concentrated on the left side > M.

  So answer choice E says "Some sycamores are not as old as the youngest tulip trees." Meaning, some of the sycamores on the right side of what I wrote [in the "> D/S"] are younger than the tulips.

  Does that make sense?
• 1 Like

  AA114211 Member

  February 2021 39 karma

  Also I just reread what you wrote and I don't think it's true that tulips are the majority of the older trees. I don't see where it says that. Imagine you had 10 trees. You could have

  (Oldest to youngest)
  2T
  2S
  2M
  2S
  2D

  and that should satisfy things

  Sometimes on MBT I draw ten dots and just visualize it.
• 2 Likes

  McBeck418 Member

  February 2021 edited February 2021 500 karma

  I’m not quite sure if this strictly translates into lawgic. I’d be interested to know how one might translate the ‘majority but not all’ stipulation. Translating into lawgic isn’t necessarily my strongest skill, so maybe someone else can clarify this.

  The way that I looked at this question was by linking up what we knew about the ages. Tulips are older than Maples which are older than Dogwoods. T—M—D Then most sycamores are older than maples but not all. Therefore, at least one sycamore is younger than the maples. This means ‘some sycamores’ are not as old as the youngest tulip, since all tulips are older than maples.

  Hopefully this helps clarify some of the question.
• teechj117 Alum Member

  February 2021 296 karma

  Thank you both for your replies. When I revisited this problem, I realized I made a blunder on inferences between T and S. I inferred that "some" (not "most" as it should be) sycamores are younger than tulips. This looks more like D, which is what I picked. I was also thrown off trying to define "young" ,"old", and "not as old" out from lawgic, but this actually isn't much of a problem at all. This slowed me down, and led to my mistake when I rushed to answer.

  @AA114211
  This makes sense. I like the visual! I needed that reminder not to jump to conclusions.

  Your diagram of T/S > M > D/S. How are you reading T/S and D/S?

  @McBeck418
  I looked around for translations elsewhere for "a majority, but not all" and could only combine "most" and "not all" as a kind of deformed bi-conditional relationship. This screwed me, because when I defined "not all", I was thinking of the possibility of none. Same goes for most. I thought of the possibility of all. This is the trap. That being said, this relationship seems to work within the spaces of 1-99, suspending the belief of "all" and "none". During my revisit, I worked within these parameters.

  Conclusively, simply saying "at least one" sycamore is younger than the maples is a good reminder of what "some" actually means. Of course the testmakers are going to throw a curve to see if you can catch this, especially when it comes to translating back to English!

  As long as we remember T > M > D, then it's okay! Some (at least one) of the sycamores are younger than maples, and since all of the tulip trees are older than the maples, we can say

  at least one sycamore is younger (or not as old!) as the (youngest/oldest/middle child) tulip trees.

  Another way to say this would be
  "Most Tulips are older than the (youngest/oldest/middle child) sycamores"

  I feel like my brain was just put in a blender, brb
• 1 Like

  AA114211 Member

  February 2021 39 karma

  @teechj117 For T/S and D/S, from what I remember, the stim gave us no info about who was older between T or S and D and S for some of them. There is no like strict way to write this, it just was an easy way to see it for me.