... I can’t recall an existential fallacy lesson. “No” is simply ... - negate necessary and done, no existential strings attached. I think at ... , the classic example of this existential fallacy, so I’m wondering ...
Also, I think "few" may have some existential implications. "Few unicorns exist (on Earth)." That implies at least one unicorn exists (on Earth). Few/many is a false binary because it leaves out 0.
... many, etc.", into the universal/existential dichotomy. This is a doomed ... project because the universal/existential quantifiers ("all"/"some") of first ...
... many, etc.", into the universal/existential dichotomy. This is a doomed ... project because the universal/existential quantifiers ("all"/"some") of first ...
I can recognize the validity of mapped arguments quickly, it's just getting it on the paper that's the hard part. I mess it up when translating. I think it may be all the qualifiers and extra language throwing me off.
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.
... because of something called the existential fallacy, but I've never ... logic and is not an existential fallacy. "Not all" is equivalent ... logic -- no fallacy involved. The existential fallacy is moving from "All ...