WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

sangr
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:45 pm

WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby sangr » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:42 am

hey guys i got a question

on an LR inference stimulus this is what came up.

you shouldnt look for gardeners for insight into sports.

most gardeners have sports info that is LESS smart than any one who is NOT a gardener.

right answer inference:
some gardeners are no less smarter than any person who is not a gardener?

WTF?! if you make a statement about MOST people then theres a possibility that the minority are NOT like them, but that doesnt necessarily mean that they ARE, it just means that AT THE LEAST, MOST people are like that?

so how the hell is that the right answer?

User avatar
Teoeo
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:21 am

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby Teoeo » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:45 am

I honestly can't understand what you have typed.

sangr
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby sangr » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:58 am

basically I'm saying lsac has used this formula

most A's are less than B

and inferred that

some A's are at least NOT less than B

this is not inferrable right? assuming the A and B are referring to people

User avatar
Band A Long
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:50 am

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby Band A Long » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:01 am

sangr wrote:some gardeners are no less smarter than any person who is not a gardener?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

sangr
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby sangr » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:05 am

Band A Long wrote:
sangr wrote:some gardeners are no less smarter than any person who is not a gardener?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


lol believe it or not lsac wrote it like that. if anything the original is worded more confusingly. can someone please give their insight

HBK
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby HBK » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:10 am

sangr wrote:hey guys i got a question

on an LR inference stimulus this is what came up.

you shouldnt look for gardeners for insight into sports.

most gardeners have sports info that is LESS smart than any one who is NOT a gardener.

right answer inference:
some gardeners are no less smarter as smart than any as some persons who is not a gardener?



This makes more sense. Do you have a test/q #?

minnesotasam
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:47 am

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby minnesotasam » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:12 am

Just retype the question please.

User avatar
fltanglab
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby fltanglab » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:31 am

sangr wrote:basically I'm saying lsac has used this formula

most A's are less than B

and inferred that

some A's are at least NOT less than B

this is not inferrable right? assuming the A and B are referring to people


Yes, it's right. MOST A's are less than B, but some A's are at least not less than B (they could be either equal to B or greater than B). If you draw a Venn Diagram, it makes sense. If ALL A's were less than B's, then they'd say so.

edit: If you want a more detailed explanation/a Venn Diagram illustrating this scenario, PM me.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby EarlCat » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:12 am

fltanglab wrote:If ALL A's were less than B's, then they'd say so.

Since when? If all As are less than B's, aren't most of said A's also less than B's? Is "most but not all" redundant?

User avatar
fltanglab
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby fltanglab » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:21 am

EarlCat wrote:
fltanglab wrote:If ALL A's were less than B's, then they'd say so.

Since when? If all As are less than B's, aren't most of said A's also less than B's?


No, ALL of them are. "Most" implies that some aren't. If there's any room for uncertainty, then you can't assume that "most" actually means "all." It's like saying most people score below a 170. That doesn't mean everyone scores below a 170. It means some people score above or at a 170, but most people score below a 170.

BrianOz1
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby BrianOz1 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:27 am

Most does not rule out all.

User avatar
fltanglab
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby fltanglab » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:39 am

BrianOz1 wrote:Most does not rule out all.


In logic there are certain parameters to the word "most" that may not apply in everyday usage. Just look it up. I was just explaining LSAC's reasoning on that problem.

If I were to address a room of people and say "most of you are (insult)." Someone in the crowd might get angry. I would say, "well, I said most, not all." If most didn't rule out all, that statement wouldn't work to appease the person.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby EarlCat » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:45 am

fltanglab wrote:In logic everyday useage there are certain parameters to the word "most" that may not apply in everyday usage logic.

For example: If I were to address a room of people and say "most of you are (insult)." Someone in the crowd might get angry. I would say, "well, I said most, not all."

FTFY

If most didn't rule out all, that statement wouldn't work to appease the person.

It wouldn't work anyway.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby EarlCat » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:55 am

fltanglab wrote:"Most" implies that some aren't.

Wrong.
--ImageRemoved--
Last edited by EarlCat on Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FuManChusco
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby FuManChusco » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:05 am

pretty sure most can mean all.

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby Jeffort » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:38 am

FuManChusco wrote:pretty sure most can mean all.


Yes, in the rudimentary logic that LSAC tests with the LSAT, the quantifier "most" BY ITSELF (when not also constrained by other context info), allows for the possibility of all.

The bright red geisha is simply wrong, but very adamant about its parameters as a logical quantifier. Maybe in the unspecified LR question there is something else that makes it also 'NOT ALL', but I have no idea which question is being referred to in the thread since it wasn't specified.

You'll have to ask geisha for the specific reference since she implied she knows which LR question the thread is about and also asserts that LSAC intends "most" to mean "not all", which they don't.

JesusChrist
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby JesusChrist » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:11 am

Gonna have to agree with the majority of people on here. Also, 'some' can also mean 'all'. Same idea.

User avatar
fltanglab
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby fltanglab » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:02 am

"most A's are less than B

and inferred that

some A's are at least NOT less than B"

There are three possibilities here. A < B, A = B, and A > B.

Most of these A's are less than B.

What about the other ones that aren't less than B?

"assuming the A and B are referring to people"

Let's assume person type A is gold and person type B is silver.

Most gold people are less than silver people. But this statement says nothing about the remainder of the gold people. It also specifies "most" by purposely not including some of the gold people. The choice of "most" as opposed to "all" is significant because it's a logic problem and language is always significant for a logic problem. If they meant "all," saying "all" would make the question clearer than just leaving "most," which apparently seems ambiguous to most people (but not all people- for example myself).

Therefore you can infer that some of the gold people, the ones not included in the "most" are either equal to or greater than the silver people.

I don't understand how you think "most" means "all." The definition of "most" is: a great majority of; nearly all; a majority (note JC's usage of "majority" as meaning not all, but most of the people ITT). Plus this is LSAC. They would avoid using "most" in a way that would suggest "all" anyway. Just take it at face value.

Also- not a geisha. She's wearing a cheongsam/qipao (Chinese).

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby sundance95 » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:10 am

Edit: See I was beat to it.

JesusChrist
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby JesusChrist » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:18 am

The statement that

'Most As are less than B'

allows for the possibility of "some A's are at least NOT less than B". No doubt about that. But from JUST "Most As are less than B" it's not something we can infer. And remember, in logical terms "infer" means to be able to logically deduce and arrive at with complete certainty.

Cambridge LSAT
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:26 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby Cambridge LSAT » Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:29 am

In case anyone's wondering, the question is PT2-S2-Q24. Here's another thread in which it was discussed:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=104712

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby EarlCat » Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:00 pm

fltanglab wrote:I don't understand how you think "most" means "all."

Nobody but nobody thinks "most" means "all." But "most," absent any other restriction,allows for all.

Cambridge LSAT wrote:In case anyone's wondering, the question is PT2-S2-Q24.

Then Jeffort nailed it. There is an additional premise that restricts most from being all.

Quoth the stimulus:
"Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talent and political insight are rarely found together."

The inference that "some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well educated persons who are not artists" (i.e. some are not less) comes from this statement, not from any inference (improperly) drawn from the use of "most" instead of "all" in a vacuum.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby suspicious android » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:40 pm

I found this thread extremely amusing. Good response from Jeffort, he saw it all happening in advance, like some Jedi-level shit. Take home lesson: do not paraphrase when looking for help with an LSAT question.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby EarlCat » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:48 pm

suspicious android wrote:Good response from Jeffort, he saw it all happening in advance, like some Jedi-level shit.

Image

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: WTF LSAC? question regarding discrepency? or is it?

Postby d34d9823 » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:52 pm

fltanglab wrote:
BrianOz1 wrote:Most does not rule out all.


In logic there are certain parameters to the word "most" that may not apply in everyday usage. Just look it up. I was just explaining LSAC's reasoning on that problem.

If I were to address a room of people and say "most of you are (insult)." Someone in the crowd might get angry. I would say, "well, I said most, not all." If most didn't rule out all, that statement wouldn't work to appease the person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addie1412, BOSStongrl, hamburg, njames1961, theboringest, Tsubomi93 and 6 guests