"Some" vs "Many" Forum

[skip james]

While you can derive 'some' from 'many' (in fact, that's all you can safely derive), you cannot derive 'many' from 'some'.

So as an example, if you know that "some people are going bowling", you cannot derive that "many people are going bowling".

That's funny, I can't seem to recall any LSAT problem that required knowledge of a distinction between 'many' and 'some'. At least, not one where it mattered in deriving the correct answer choice. Do you have any examples in mind?

[Mattalones]

While you can derive 'some' from 'many' (in fact, that's all you can safely derive), you cannot derive 'many' from 'some'.

So as an example, if you know that "some people are going bowling", you cannot derive that "many people are going bowling".

That's funny, I can't seem to recall any LSAT problem that required knowledge of a distinction between 'many' and 'some'. At least, not one where it mattered in deriving the correct answer choice. Do you have any examples in mind?

He put an example in the bottom of his post. I remember seeing problems like that too. They just want to see if you can do this:
Most Xs are Y, and most Xs are also Z. So, at least one Y is a Z.

You can see that there must be an overlap of Ys and Zs in at least the tiniest spot.
(Yeah, I drew it. There was nothing on google images that quite illustrated what it needed to illustrate for this )

[skip james]

He put an example in the bottom of his post. I remember seeing problems like that too.

that example doesn't apply. it doesn't even use the word 'many'.

[skip james]

as a point of clarification, i understand the distinction between 'most' and 'some' (I wouldn't have scored what I did had I not), it's the distinction between 'many' and 'some' that i am expressing my doubts about, in terms of relevance to the LSAT anyway.

[Mattalones]

as a point of clarification, i understand the distinction between 'most' and 'some' (I wouldn't have scored what I did had I not), it's the distinction between 'many' and 'some' that i am expressing my doubts about, in terms of relevance to the LSAT anyway.

I am obviously not able to read late at night. You were right to begin with. I am going to get some much needed sleep. G'night

[yoni45]

The example was in reference to something else, so it definitely wouldn't apply. A quick search brings up this one that seems like it should work though... PT32, S4, Q14.

The stimulus provides a specific case in which something that, for at least one purpose, is theoretically superior is also practically inferior. In other words, we know that at least in some cases, ideas that work well in theory don't work that well in practice.

Answer choice (A) states that "many" ideas that work well in theory don't work well in practice. But, we only know that this is true in some cases, not necessarily in many. (A) is incorrect.

[skip james]

The example was in reference to something else, so it definitely wouldn't apply. A quick search brings up this one that seems like it should work though... PT32, S4, Q14.

The stimulus provides a specific case in which something that, for at least one purpose, is theoretically superior is also practically inferior. In other words, we know that at least in some cases, ideas that work well in theory don't work that well in practice.

Answer choice (A) states that "many" ideas that work well in theory don't work well in practice. But, we only know that this is true in some cases, not necessarily in many. (A) is incorrect.

Actually I don't buy that. According to that question what you know is two things:

(1) a analog systems are theoretically better than digital

(2) that (1) entails "a practical disadvantage" (this last bit is verbatim)

there is a difference between something 'having a practical disadvantage' and 'not working well in practice'. Specifically, that difference is that having a practical disadvantage only entails one aspect of practicality that is lacking, while 'not working well in practice' is a blanket statement. We cannot even say that SOME things that work theoretically do not work well in practice because the stimulus does not give us enough information to deduce that. What we can deduce is that there is a SINGLE scenario where digital recordings have an advantage OVER analog, but not that analog recordings do not work well in practice.

This point hits up the difference between relative statements and absolute statements. If I say that mondays are hotter than tuesdays, I can't say that mondays are hot or that tuesdays are cold because we lack an absolute statement about what constitutes hot or cold.

In our case here we only have a relative 'practical disadvantage' since this disadvantage is based on the relative claim that 'analog systems are more precise than digital systems'. This 'disadvantage' is nowhere stated to be enough to say that 'analog systems do not work well in practice'. In fact, this disadvantage is further qualified later to be confined to the making of duplicate recordings. In order to conclude A, therefore, we would need an additional statement such as 'practicality of making a large number of duplicate recordings is indicative of whether a system works well in practice' or something to that effect.

edit: i guess my main point (if you don't want to read all of the above) is that if something 'has a practical disadvantage' that does not suggest that that something does 'not work well in practice'.

[yoni45]

edit: i guess my main point (if you don't want to read all of the above) is that if something 'has a practical disadvantage' that does not suggest that that something does 'not work well in practice'.

Well, I guess that depends on how narrowly you define the 'idea'.

The initial premise puts out that analog systems are theoretically superior to digital in general. I'd say it's fair to say that covers the entire spectrum of uses.

When it comes to the 'idea' of which is superior for duplicating the signal over and over though, although theoretically analog is superior (by the blanket statement), practically it's not. That is, while the idea that analog is superior to digital works in theory, this idea does not work well in practice (in at least some cases).

This seems to be splitting hairs a bit much though, so I'll grant it might not be the best example. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head to hinge upon the definition of 'many'. I know I've often used that as reasoning to knock answer choices off and it's worked great, but I guess there remains the possibility there was another reason for why those answer choices were wrong as well...?

I'll say that I don't think I've ever noted the distinction between 'some' and 'many' *not* matter though, so given the difference between the terms, I don't see any reason to believe they *are* interchangeable, and could easily see that being a sticking point.

[skip james]

I'll say that I don't think I've ever noted the distinction between 'some' and 'many' *not* matter though, so given the difference between the terms, I don't see any reason to believe they *are* interchangeable, and could easily see that being a sticking point.

By the same token, I've never found a distinction to matter. And the lack of such a distinction has not clearly not stopped me from hitting 175+. But what I suggest is to try and consider 'many' to mean 'some' and see if you get any problems wrong as a result. I mean, it's possible that the distinction does not exist in any relevant sense on the LSAT and thinking there is such a distinction could be dulling your Logical Reasoning game, i.e. by making you overlook legitimate 'other' reasons for elimination. Just my thoughts, feel free to disregard anything I say, obviously.

[yoni45]

By the same token, I've never found a distinction to matter. And the lack of such a distinction has not clearly not stopped me from hitting 175+. But what I suggest is to try and consider 'many' to mean 'some' and see if you get any problems wrong as a result. I mean, it's possible that the distinction does not exist in any relevant sense on the LSAT and thinking there is such a distinction could be dulling your Logical Reasoning game, i.e. by making you overlook legitimate 'other' reasons for elimination. Just my thoughts, feel free to disregard anything I say, obviously.

Well, I've already got my 179, so I'm fairly content with my game... =)

Although, while I'm quite sure the distinction plays a role in some cases on the test, it's probably quite useful to note that it's not at all a very prominent one (if at all) given your success.

[skip james]

Well, I've already got my 179, so I'm fairly content with my game... =)

touche.

Although, while I'm quite sure the distinction plays a role in some cases on the test, it's probably quite useful to note that it's not at all a very prominent one (if at all) given your success.

still.. if it is a distinction, i would like to know about it. so if you can give me a better example, then perhaps you can make a believer out of me. as it stands, however, i'm still have my doubts.

[Mattalones]

It is one of those distinctions that you don't need to worry about until you are getting a 179 and really need that extra point

There is a distinction, it just isn't that important for the LSAT.

Just prioritize.

[I did 171, not 179, but still feel confident to say that it isn't something you should focus on until you have mastered anything else.]

Side note: It would ONLY apply to LR, and def. not LG. Maybe a reading comp, but it would be the most picky reading comp EVER and I cannot recall ever seing one!

[HiLine]

It's amazing how such a vocabulary question has turned into a philosophical discussion.

[Mattalones]

It's amazing how such a vocabulary question has turned into a philosophical discussion.

The philosophy of of language question is clear: There is an actual difference between the words.
The SEPERATE LSAT question is also clear: It doesn't really matter that much.

I am interested in the philosophy of language question more than the LSAT question b/c I took my LSAT already and I like language, so anything I say from here on out about the distinction IS NOT intended for application to the LSAT (you can think it is, but that is not my motivation):
Yoni put it in friendly terms:

Some means at least 1. Many means at least X, where X is a subjective number or proportion that could be anywhere from 1 to all. Both 'some' and 'many' can mean all.

I would, however, modify it to be as follows:

Some means at least 1. Many means at least X, where X is a significant value relative to the universe size (what "significant" means, I will leave up to statisticians). Niether 'some' nor 'many' have an upper limit, so the statements "some people are mammals," and "many people are mammals" are vacuously true because of the fact that all people are mammals.

[yoni45]

still.. if it is a distinction, i would like to know about it. so if you can give me a better example, then perhaps you can make a believer out of me. as it stands, however, i'm still have my doubts.

I'd expect no less -- if I come across one, you'll be the first to know...

...maybe 2nd... =P

I would, however, modify it to be as follows...

It seems like your modification largely rests on what defines a 'significant value' -- specifically, that there is a statistically objective measure for what it is...

I don't know if I entirely agree with that -- I'd say what constitutes the cutoff for what is 'many' is inherently subjective. I don't think there's any statistical measure for what 'many' constitutes (and even if there was, it'd be nothing more than an arbitrary definition applicable to the statistical definition of the word).

What is many for some, might not be many for another -- and I don't think you can say either one is objectively wrong.

[Mattalones]

I would, however, modify it to be as follows...

It seems like your modification largely rests on what defines a 'significant value' -- specifically, that there is a statistically objective measure for what it is...

I don't know if I entirely agree with that -- I'd say what constitutes the cutoff for what is 'many' is inherently subjective. I don't think there's any statistical measure for what 'many' constitutes (and even if there was, it'd be nothing more than an arbitrary definition applicable to the statistical definition of the word).

What is many for some, might not be many for another -- and I don't think you can say either one is objectively wrong.

Let that be true so that my post read as follows:

Some means at least 1. Many means at least X, where X is a significant value relative to the universe size (what "significant" means in a given context, I will leave up to those familiar with that context to decide). Niether 'some' nor 'many' have an upper limit, so the statements "some people are mammals," and "many people are mammals" are vacuously true because of the fact that all people are mammals.

I don't think that it really changes the point much (i.e. 1: there is a significant value no matter who or what determines it, and 2: "some" and "many" only have a minimum value, not a maximum value).

[McNulty]

Sorry if this is an older post - but I found a previous question where the distinction of some vs many definitely matters.

June 1991, LR 2, #21. After skimming this thread I was intrigued by some of the responses and trying to figure out why x is correct - as opposed to y. Seems that some does in fact mean "at least one", where many is "more than one" - and the correct answer lies in the difference between the two. Maybe the newer tests are different but I'd remember the distinction just in case.

EDIT: Is it ok for me to reference past Qs without stating them or ...?

[3|ink]

Sorry if this is an older post - but I found a previous question where the distinction of some vs many definitely matters.

June 1991, LR 2, #21. After skimming this thread I was intrigued by some of the responses and trying to figure out why x is correct - as opposed to y. Seems that some does in fact mean "at least one", where many is "more than one" - and the correct answer lies in the difference between the two. Maybe the newer tests are different but I'd remember the distinction just in case.

EDIT: Is it ok for me to reference past Qs without stating them or ...?

'I was outnumbered!'

When you said this, were you referring to two or more? If I remember correctly, it was two prostitutes. Thus, you were outnumbered by 'many' prostitutes.

According to Testmasters (the course I took), 'some' and 'many' have the same meaning for the purposes of the LSAT. I happen to remember a parallel reasoning question where 'some' was used in the conclusion of the stimulus and 'many' was used in the conclusion of the credited answer choice.

[Curry]

Here is a direct question that struggles with the Many/Some difference and has two answer choices with the only difference between the two being some and many
...
Nevermind, can't post questions

I still don't understand why its not E

[dakatz]

@curry (didn't want to quote since I don't want the actual question in my post)

Here is a hypothetical that should clear it up. Imagine a city where tons of people rob other people. There are MANY cases of robbery in this city. But lets assume that robbery is the only crime that is ever committed in this city, and thus is the only act restricted by law. Just because there are many crimes does not mean there must be many laws. Because what if all crimes are violations of the same law? Hope this makes sense.

Some means "at least one", so just interchange the words in the correct answer choice and it should be clear. "A society that has at least one crime has at least one law". This is pretty simple since a crime implies that there was a law to break in the first place. So if there is at least a single crime, then we know for certain that there is at least one law that was broken, even if that law is the only one in existence.

P.S. You aren't supposed to post questions, so I would take that down ASAP

[Curry]

@curry (didn't want to quote since I don't want the actual question in my post)

Here is a hypothetical that should clear it up. Imagine a city where tons of people rob other people. There are MANY cases of robbery in this city. But lets assume that robbery is the only crime that is ever committed in this city, and thus is the only act restricted by law. Just because there are many crimes does not mean there must be many laws. Because what if all crimes are violations of the same law? Hope this makes sense.

Some means "at least one", so just interchange the words in the correct answer choice and it should be clear. "A society that has at least one crime has at least one law". This is pretty simple since a crime implies that there was a law to break in the first place. So if there is at least a single crime, then we know for certain that there is at least one law that was broken, even if that law is the only one in existence.

P.S. You aren't supposed to post questions, so I would take that down ASAP

Took the question down. Thanks.

The problem with this is that according to the LSAT, Some and Many are the same thing. They both are defined as "at least one." Just interchanging the words doesn't do anything. Colloquial english says many doesn't work there but logically, because they are the same thing, i don't see a difference in the answers

[dakatz]

@curry (didn't want to quote since I don't want the actual question in my post)

Here is a hypothetical that should clear it up. Imagine a city where tons of people rob other people. There are MANY cases of robbery in this city. But lets assume that robbery is the only crime that is ever committed in this city, and thus is the only act restricted by law. Just because there are many crimes does not mean there must be many laws. Because what if all crimes are violations of the same law? Hope this makes sense.

Some means "at least one", so just interchange the words in the correct answer choice and it should be clear. "A society that has at least one crime has at least one law". This is pretty simple since a crime implies that there was a law to break in the first place. So if there is at least a single crime, then we know for certain that there is at least one law that was broken, even if that law is the only one in existence.

P.S. You aren't supposed to post questions, so I would take that down ASAP

Took the question down. Thanks.

The problem with this is that according to the LSAT, Some and Many are the same thing. They both are defined as "at least one." Just interchanging the words doesn't do anything. Colloquial english says many doesn't work there but logically, because they are the same thing, i don't see a difference in the answers

Many and some are not interchangeable. I took Testmasters and have no idea where you got that info from. Some means "at least one". Many means a relative large number. If you apply these definitions, the question makes perfect sense. And since these are obviously the definitions the LSAT was looking for, these are the ones I would use. Again, I'm not sure what leads you to believe that they are interchangeable, but they most certainly are not, and this question is a clear indication of that fact.

[Curry]

@curry (didn't want to quote since I don't want the actual question in my post)

Here is a hypothetical that should clear it up. Imagine a city where tons of people rob other people. There are MANY cases of robbery in this city. But lets assume that robbery is the only crime that is ever committed in this city, and thus is the only act restricted by law. Just because there are many crimes does not mean there must be many laws. Because what if all crimes are violations of the same law? Hope this makes sense.

Some means "at least one", so just interchange the words in the correct answer choice and it should be clear. "A society that has at least one crime has at least one law". This is pretty simple since a crime implies that there was a law to break in the first place. So if there is at least a single crime, then we know for certain that there is at least one law that was broken, even if that law is the only one in existence.

P.S. You aren't supposed to post questions, so I would take that down ASAP

Took the question down. Thanks.

The problem with this is that according to the LSAT, Some and Many are the same thing. They both are defined as "at least one." Just interchanging the words doesn't do anything. Colloquial english says many doesn't work there but logically, because they are the same thing, i don't see a difference in the answers

Many and some are not interchangeable. I took Testmasters and have no idea where you got that info from. Some means "at least one". Many means a relative large number. If you apply these definitions, the question makes perfect sense. And since these are obviously the definitions the LSAT was looking for, these are the ones I would use. Again, I'm not sure what leads you to believe that they are interchangeable, but they most certainly are not, and this question is a clear indication of that fact.

I'm taking testmasters. My teacher said they are interchangeable. Also some of the earlier posts on this page (as well as my symbolic logic professor) said they were interchangeable as well.

[dakatz]

@curry (didn't want to quote since I don't want the actual question in my post)

Here is a hypothetical that should clear it up. Imagine a city where tons of people rob other people. There are MANY cases of robbery in this city. But lets assume that robbery is the only crime that is ever committed in this city, and thus is the only act restricted by law. Just because there are many crimes does not mean there must be many laws. Because what if all crimes are violations of the same law? Hope this makes sense.

Some means "at least one", so just interchange the words in the correct answer choice and it should be clear. "A society that has at least one crime has at least one law". This is pretty simple since a crime implies that there was a law to break in the first place. So if there is at least a single crime, then we know for certain that there is at least one law that was broken, even if that law is the only one in existence.

P.S. You aren't supposed to post questions, so I would take that down ASAP

Took the question down. Thanks.

The problem with this is that according to the LSAT, Some and Many are the same thing. They both are defined as "at least one." Just interchanging the words doesn't do anything. Colloquial english says many doesn't work there but logically, because they are the same thing, i don't see a difference in the answers

Many and some are not interchangeable. I took Testmasters and have no idea where you got that info from. Some means "at least one". Many means a relative large number. If you apply these definitions, the question makes perfect sense. And since these are obviously the definitions the LSAT was looking for, these are the ones I would use. Again, I'm not sure what leads you to believe that they are interchangeable, but they most certainly are not, and this question is a clear indication of that fact.

I'm taking testmasters. My teacher said they are interchangeable. Also some of the earlier posts on this page (as well as my symbolic logic professor) said they were interchangeable as well.

Then this question would make absolutely no sense. They don't publish questions that make no sense. So obviously there is a difference between the words.

You can take the word "many" and replace it with "some", but you simply cannot take "some" and replace it with "many". I have tutored LSAT for over a year now and this is the case across the board for every single question that involves both of these terms. Again, to assume that the words are interchangeable would be to concede that LSAC publishes questions that are completely unanswerable. That isn't the case. It is a matter of, either the test is wrong, or the definitions you are subscribing to are wrong. I will leave that choice up to you.

Again, the question makes absolute and total sense if you apply the differing meanings of "some" and "many". I have taught every single LR question in existence and there is not a single one involving those terms that cannot be answered by using the definitions mentioned above. Again, "some" means at least one. "Many" is a term used to denote a large relative quantity.

[3|ink]

Then this question would make absolutely no sense. They don't publish questions that make no sense. So obviously there is a difference between the words.

You can take the word "many" and replace it with "some", but you simply cannot take "some" and replace it with "many". I have tutored LSAT for over a year now and this is the case across the board for every single question that involves both of these terms. Again, to assume that the words are interchangeable would be to concede that LSAC publishes questions that are completely unanswerable. That isn't the case. It is a matter of, either the test is wrong, or the definitions you are subscribing to are wrong. I will leave that choice up to you.

So you're argument is that’ many’ and ‘some’ are not interchangeable because the LSAT doesn't create questions that make no sense and using ‘many’ and ‘some’ interchangeably wouldn't make sense because they are not interchangeable. Does anyone recognize the problem here? Here's a hint:

Again, the question makes absolute and total sense if you apply the differing meanings of "some" and "many". I have taught every single LR question in existence and there is not a single one involving those terms that cannot be answered by using the definitions mentioned above. Again, "some" means at least one. "Many" is a term used to denote a large relative quantity.

I'm at a disadvantage. All I can say at this time is that I remember a question like this. I don't have a specific reference. However, I could easily see the LSAT using ‘many’ and ‘some’ interchangeably, because it’s hard to imagine that they’d go so far as to test your knowledge of the difference between those two terms.