Question about "NOT ALL" Forum
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:11 pm
Question about "NOT ALL"
When the statement says NOT ALL A are B
Do you interpret it as Some A are B
Or
Do you interpret it as Some A are not B.
I think the former is correct because isn't the negation of all some?
I am having trouble
Please help me out.
Do you interpret it as Some A are B
Or
Do you interpret it as Some A are not B.
I think the former is correct because isn't the negation of all some?
I am having trouble
Please help me out.
-
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:52 pm
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
You cannot interpret it as Some A are B. If no A is B, then that still fulfills the requirement of not all A are B.ljh912005 wrote:When the statement says NOT ALL A are B
Do you interpret it as Some A are B
Or
Do you interpret it as Some A are not B.
I think the former is correct because isn't the negation of all some?
I am having trouble
Please help me out.
Some A are not B is correct.
-
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
Not all = some not.
Not all A are B. Some A are not B.
These statements are also true if NO A are B
edit: scooped, and A does exist here. Some A are not B is an existential claim. It is stating there exists an A that is not B.
Not all A are B. Some A are not B.
These statements are also true if NO A are B
edit: scooped, and A does exist here. Some A are not B is an existential claim. It is stating there exists an A that is not B.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
Latter correct, former incorrect.
-
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
And for negations of all and some:ljh912005 wrote:When the statement says NOT ALL A are B
Do you interpret it as Some A are B
Or
Do you interpret it as Some A are not B.
I think the former is correct because isn't the negation of all some?
I am having trouble
Please help me out.
All A are B = NOT Some A that is NOT B
Some A is B = NOT All A are NOT B
All A are NOT B = NOT Some A that is B
Some A is NOT B = NOT All A are B
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:06 am
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:And for negations of all and some:ljh912005 wrote:When the statement says NOT ALL A are B
Do you interpret it as Some A are B
Or
Do you interpret it as Some A are not B.
I think the former is correct because isn't the negation of all some?
I am having trouble
Please help me out.
All A are B = NOT Some A that is NOT B
Some A is B = NOT All A are NOT B
All A are NOT B = NOT Some A that is B
Some A is NOT B = NOT All A are B
Not All A is B can= no As equal B, right? on a 0 to 100 scale, it means 0 to 99 percent of A can be B?
-
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
I wouldn't use the equals sign, but yeah. Not All A are B will remain true if it is the case that NO A is B.LSATdecember2012man wrote:A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:And for negations of all and some:ljh912005 wrote:When the statement says NOT ALL A are B
Do you interpret it as Some A are B
Or
Do you interpret it as Some A are not B.
I think the former is correct because isn't the negation of all some?
I am having trouble
Please help me out.
All A are B = NOT Some A that is NOT B
Some A is B = NOT All A are NOT B
All A are NOT B = NOT Some A that is B
Some A is NOT B = NOT All A are B
Not All A is B can= no As equal B, right? on a 0 to 100 scale, it means 0 to 99 percent of A can be B?
Use numbers you can count instead of percentages:
If there are 100 A's and Not All A are B, then there exists (at least) one A that is NOT B and the 99 others are undetermined without more information. The 99 other A's could be B or NOT B. It doesn't matter which those other 99 are as long as you know that there is one A that is NOT B.
0 A's are B and 100 A's are NOT B: could be true
1 A is B and 99 A's are NOT B: could be true
99 A's are B and 1 A is NOT B: could be true
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:06 am
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
question on your negations. for All A are B negation, why wouldnt it be Not All A that is Not B?A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:And for negations of all and some:ljh912005 wrote:When the statement says NOT ALL A are B
Do you interpret it as Some A are B
Or
Do you interpret it as Some A are not B.
I think the former is correct because isn't the negation of all some?
I am having trouble
Please help me out.
All A are B = NOT Some A that is NOT B
Some A is B = NOT All A are NOT B
All A are NOT B = NOT Some A that is B
Some A is NOT B = NOT All A are B
Same for All A ARE NOT B negation.
-
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:52 pm
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
question on your negations. for All A are B negation, why wouldnt it be Not All A that is Not B?
Same for All A ARE NOT B negation.[/quote]
"Not all" means "at least one" / some.
So when you write Not All A are Not B, you're basically saying, "at least one" / some A is B".
You can, however, say that No A is not B. That is the logical equivalent to NOT Some A is NOT B.
All oranges are fruit. (All A are B) = No orange is not a fruit. (No A is not B)
Not All oranges are Not fruit. (Not All A are Not B)
This simply says that there exists at least one (some) orange which is a fruit. We do not, however, have any idea how many oranges are fruits. This allows for some oranges to NOT be fruits as long as at least one is.
All A are NOT B = No A is B
All oranges are Not apples. (All A are NOT B) = No orange is an apple (No A is B)
Not all A are B
Not all oranges are apples.
Again, this simply states that at least one (some) orange is not an apple. This does not preclude other oranges from being apples, as long as one of them is not an apple.
Same for All A ARE NOT B negation.[/quote]
"Not all" means "at least one" / some.
So when you write Not All A are Not B, you're basically saying, "at least one" / some A is B".
You can, however, say that No A is not B. That is the logical equivalent to NOT Some A is NOT B.
All oranges are fruit. (All A are B) = No orange is not a fruit. (No A is not B)
Not All oranges are Not fruit. (Not All A are Not B)
This simply says that there exists at least one (some) orange which is a fruit. We do not, however, have any idea how many oranges are fruits. This allows for some oranges to NOT be fruits as long as at least one is.
All A are NOT B = No A is B
All oranges are Not apples. (All A are NOT B) = No orange is an apple (No A is B)
Not all A are B
Not all oranges are apples.
Again, this simply states that at least one (some) orange is not an apple. This does not preclude other oranges from being apples, as long as one of them is not an apple.
- cahwc12
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
this is a roundabout way of just saying "0-99%"A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote: I wouldn't use the equals sign, but yeah. Not All A are B will remain true if it is the case that NO A is B.
Use numbers you can count instead of percentages:
If there are 100 A's and Not All A are B, then there exists (at least) one A that is NOT B and the 99 others are undetermined without more information. The 99 other A's could be B or NOT B. It doesn't matter which those other 99 are as long as you know that there is one A that is NOT B.
0 A's are B and 100 A's are NOT B: could be true
1 A is B and 99 A's are NOT B: could be true
99 A's are B and 1 A is NOT B: could be true
100 A's are B and 0 A's are NOT B: false
LSAT blog has a great write-up on quantifying common formal logic terms, but I can't seem to easily find it.
- LSAT Blog
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
Glad you enjoyed the post! It's under the Logical Reasoning tab at the top of the blog.cahwc12 wrote:this is a roundabout way of just saying "0-99%"A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote: I wouldn't use the equals sign, but yeah. Not All A are B will remain true if it is the case that NO A is B.
Use numbers you can count instead of percentages:
If there are 100 A's and Not All A are B, then there exists (at least) one A that is NOT B and the 99 others are undetermined without more information. The 99 other A's could be B or NOT B. It doesn't matter which those other 99 are as long as you know that there is one A that is NOT B.
0 A's are B and 100 A's are NOT B: could be true
1 A is B and 99 A's are NOT B: could be true
99 A's are B and 1 A is NOT B: could be true
100 A's are B and 0 A's are NOT B: false
LSAT blog has a great write-up on quantifying common formal logic terms, but I can't seem to easily find it.
Here's the link: http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/ls ... -some.html
-
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm
Re: Question about "NOT ALL"
for this example, you are correctcahwc12 wrote:this is a roundabout way of just saying "0-99%"A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote: I wouldn't use the equals sign, but yeah. Not All A are B will remain true if it is the case that NO A is B.
Use numbers you can count instead of percentages:
If there are 100 A's and Not All A are B, then there exists (at least) one A that is NOT B and the 99 others are undetermined without more information. The 99 other A's could be B or NOT B. It doesn't matter which those other 99 are as long as you know that there is one A that is NOT B.
0 A's are B and 100 A's are NOT B: could be true
1 A is B and 99 A's are NOT B: could be true
99 A's are B and 1 A is NOT B: could be true
100 A's are B and 0 A's are NOT B: false
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login