One more question for lsat instructors Forum

[dingbat]

A great majority of what?could be great majority of 30 percent inthat case doesn't have to be 50 plus 1.

If it had said something like "The great majority of Alpine forests are being desrtoyed" then yes, you would be correct. 95% of Alpine forests could be destroyed without it necessarily being most of the world's forests. However, since it explicitly states the great majority of all forests in the world are being destroyed, we have to conclude that it is in fact most of the world's forests.

By now I kind of wish one of the LSAT folks would actually come in here and say something, because I have a feeling you wont believe anyone else.

She won't believe anyone, unless they're known liars

[ScottRiqui]

Which practice exam are you looking at? What question?

It's PT 49, section 4, question #19. The correct answer follows perfectly from the definition we've been trying to explain to OP, so I don't know where the confusion is coming from.

[Nova]

[dingbat]

Which practice exam are you looking at? What question?

It's PT 49, section 4, question #19. The correct answer follows perfectly from the definition we've been trying to explain to OP, so I don't know where the confusion is coming from.

I don't have that test, so I can't read it. I'll just assume you're correct.

[ScottRiqui]

Which practice exam are you looking at? What question?

It's PT 49, section 4, question #19. The correct answer follows perfectly from the definition we've been trying to explain to OP, so I don't know where the confusion is coming from.

I don't have that test, so I can't read it. I'll just assume you're correct.

I think I can explain the gist of it without running afoul of TLS guidelines.

The question says that a "great majority" of the world's forests have become damaged. It goes on to say that damaged forests cannot support all of their plant and animal species without regular intervention from resource managers.

It's a "most strongly supported" question, and the correct answer choice says that with no intervention, most of the world's forests will lose at least some of their plant and animal species, which follows directly from the question statement:

If a "great majority" of the forests are damaged (greater than 50%), and if damaged forests can't support their species without regular intervention, then greater than 50% ("most") of the world's forests are going to lose at least some of their species without intervention. Seems pretty simple.

[suralin]

I tried to make this as simple as possible, but I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of some people:

All great majorities are majorities.
Not all majorities are great majorities.

[dingbat]

I tried to make this as simple as possible, but I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of some people:

All great majorities are majorities.
Not all majorities are great majorities.

All majorities are more than half
All majorities are most

(edit: I can't believe the bad grammar of the last sentence, but, c'est la vie)

[ScottRiqui]

I tried to make this as simple as possible, but I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of some people:

All great majorities are majorities.
Not all majorities are great majorities.

And in the question, the "great" descriptor is redundant anyway. If even a slight majority of the world's forests are damaged, and damaged forests can't support their resident species without regular intervention, then most of the world's forests *will* lose at least some of their species without regular intervention.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Its a great majority number but we don`t know 500 000 of what?it could be 1000 000 or 600 000 .

500,000 out of 1,000,000 is not a majority.
500,000 out of 600,000 is a great majority

However, 500,000 out of 1,000,000 would be most, if there are more than 2 possibilities and each got at least 1
500,000 out of 600,000 would be most[/quote
That`s not what u were saying before,i am glad u came to terms and after this i would recommend you to be more nice to people,its easier to criticize someone than to see your own shortcomings,lol

If this is the "great majority of forests" question, then you don't need to make the distinction and you started the most ridiculous conversation about numbers ever.
Just bubble A.

This is from page 2.

[dingbat]

This is from page 2.

I remember that

[natashka85]

Which practice exam are you looking at? What question?

It's PT 49, section 4, question #19. The correct answer follows perfectly from the definition we've been trying to explain to OP, so I don't know where the confusion is coming from.

I get that ,I just posted that cause I wanted to know what LSAT instructors think about the great majority phrase in general,not specifically in that question.

[suralin]

Which practice exam are you looking at? What question?

It's PT 49, section 4, question #19. The correct answer follows perfectly from the definition we've been trying to explain to OP, so I don't know where the confusion is coming from.

I get that ,I just posted that cause I wanted to know what LSAT instructors think about the great majority phrase in general,not specifically in that question.

Well, now you know. HTH

[natashka85]

Which practice exam are you looking at? What question?

It's PT 49, section 4, question #19. The correct answer follows perfectly from the definition we've been trying to explain to OP, so I don't know where the confusion is coming from.

I get that ,I just posted that cause I wanted to know what LSAT instructors think about the great majority phrase in general,not specifically in that question.

Well, now you know. HTH

Funny,lol

[natashka85]

Which practice exam are you looking at? What question?

It's PT 49, section 4, question #19. The correct answer follows perfectly from the definition we've been trying to explain to OP, so I don't know where the confusion is coming from.

I get that ,I just posted that cause I wanted to know what LSAT instructors think about the great majority phrase in general,not specifically in that question.

Well, now you know. HTH

happy new year ,high LSAT scores this year 170 and up,lol

[Inferno]

Natashka,

If you have 1,000,000,000 people distributed throughout 999,999,999 rooms - and each room must contain at least one person:

Does the room with two people contain most of the 1,000,000,000 people?
Does the room with two people contain a majority of the 1,000,000,000 people?

[ScottRiqui]

.

[natashka85]

Natashka,

If you have 1,000,000,000 people distributed throughout 999,999,999 rooms - and each room must contain at least one person:

Does the room with two people contain most of the 1,000,000,000 people?
Does the room with two people contain a majority of the 1,000,000,000 people?

Go back and read the older posts,u are arguing against a wrong point,lol

[dingbat]

Natashka,

If you have 1,000,000,000 people distributed throughout 999,999,999 rooms - and each room must contain at least one person:

Does the room with two people contain most of the 1,000,000,000 people?
Does the room with two people contain a majority of the 1,000,000,000 people?

Go back and read the older posts,u are arguing against a wrong point,lol

[Cobretti]

Seriously. Why the fuck is this thread not dead?

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Seriously. Why the fuck is this thread not dead?

Please kill it.

[natashka85]

Natashka,

If you have 1,000,000,000 people distributed throughout 999,999,999 rooms - and each room must contain at least one person:

Does the room with two people contain most of the 1,000,000,000 people?
Does the room with two people contain a majority of the 1,000,000,000 people?

Go back and read the older posts,u are arguing against a wrong point,lol

Which law school u go to?

[dingbat]

Which law school u go to?

Fordham

[natashka85]

Which law school u go to?

Fordham

What kind of law are u going to practice?

[Ph297]

Natashka, where r u from, how did u end up at Harvard, what did u study there, what are u doing now, did u really have a 4.0?

[dingbat]

Which law school u go to?

Fordham

What kind of law are u going to practice?

sorry, it's a little too specific, but let me just say it's a niche area of finance, where I worked for 7 years