PT53 S3 Q17 Forum

[Barack Obama 2.0]

Why exactly is C wrong ? I eliminated it on the basis that I thought the author did consider it but concluded that it didn't matter. If someone could reaffirm my reasoning or provide an alternate explanation as to why it's wrong.

[21157015576609]

Why exactly is C wrong ? I eliminated it on the basis that I thought the author did consider it but concluded that it didn't matter. If someone could reaffirm my reasoning or provide an alternate explanation as to why it's wrong.

The last line of the passage states that only "a few items" have been discredited when drawing its conclusion. Your explanation is off because in fact the author doesn't consider "many items" being discredited. However, (C) is still wrong because because the author's conclusion doesn't depend on "many items," it only depends on "a few items." (The author would likely agree that "many items" being discredited would weaken the overall body of evidence.)

[Blueprint Mithun]

Why exactly is C wrong ? I eliminated it on the basis that I thought the author did consider it but concluded that it didn't matter. If someone could reaffirm my reasoning or provide an alternate explanation as to why it's wrong.

C is wrong because it is outside the scope of the conclusion. The lawyer concludes that even if a few items are discredited, the overall body retains its strength. However, C is about many items being discredited, which isn't relevant here.

[Barack Obama 2.0]

Why exactly is C wrong ? I eliminated it on the basis that I thought the author did consider it but concluded that it didn't matter. If someone could reaffirm my reasoning or provide an alternate explanation as to why it's wrong.

C is wrong because it is outside the scope of the conclusion. The lawyer concludes that even if a few items are discredited, the overall body retains its strength. However, C is about many items being discredited, which isn't relevant here.

Thanks for your response, however I just want to quibble a bit with your reasoning. Many is an existential quantifier like "some" which just means at least one. A few also means "at least one", so you could also say that many = a few which is why I had a difficult time with this question

[21157015576609]

Why exactly is C wrong ? I eliminated it on the basis that I thought the author did consider it but concluded that it didn't matter. If someone could reaffirm my reasoning or provide an alternate explanation as to why it's wrong.

C is wrong because it is outside the scope of the conclusion. The lawyer concludes that even if a few items are discredited, the overall body retains its strength. However, C is about many items being discredited, which isn't relevant here.

Thanks for your response, however I just want to quibble a bit with your reasoning. Many is an existential quantifier like "some" which just means at least one. A few also means "at least one", so you could also say that many = a few which is why I had a difficult time with this question

No, this is not how English works. "Many" and "a few" are qualitatively different. Many > a few. The LSAT is not trying to trick you by using different words that actually mean the same thing.

[Barack Obama 2.0]

Why exactly is C wrong ? I eliminated it on the basis that I thought the author did consider it but concluded that it didn't matter. If someone could reaffirm my reasoning or provide an alternate explanation as to why it's wrong.

C is wrong because it is outside the scope of the conclusion. The lawyer concludes that even if a few items are discredited, the overall body retains its strength. However, C is about many items being discredited, which isn't relevant here.

Thanks for your response, however I just want to quibble a bit with your reasoning. Many is an existential quantifier like "some" which just means at least one. A few also means "at least one", so you could also say that many = a few which is why I had a difficult time with this question

No, this is not how English works. "Many" and "a few" are qualitatively different. Many > a few. The LSAT is not trying to trick you by using different words that actually mean the same thing.

No, "a few" and "many" CAN be quantitatively different but they don't need to be, there can definitely be an overlap between the two because like I said they're both existential quantifiers, meaning they denote a range of possibilities unlike absolute quantifiers like "None" or "All". Many just literally means "at least one", but doesn't preclude the possibility of "a lot" or "all" of something, whereas "a few" refers to a relatively small portion of something but in between "at least one" and "all" there is necessarily an overlap between the two.

[21157015576609]

No, "a few" and "many" CAN be quantitatively different but they don't need to be, there can definitely be an overlap between the two because like I said they're both existential quantifiers, meaning they denote a range of possibilities unlike absolute quantifiers like "None" or "All". Many just literally means "at least one", but doesn't preclude the possibility of "a lot" or "all" of something, whereas "a few" refers to a relatively small portion of something but in between "at least one" and "all" there is necessarily an overlap between the two.

Please source definitions of "many" and "a few" whereby a reasonable person would describe them as qualitative equivalents. (I'd ask you to use them together in a sentence from which a reasonable person would conclude that they are quantitatively the same, but that would get us nowhere because you might already read that sentence as many = a few, and then I'd just call you unreasonable.)