Many people are X, and Many people are Y Forum

[Jack Smirks]

Many = > 50%. there has to be overlap. I don't understand the debate.

Many=/= Most.

Many=Some


hth

[suspicious android]

Many = > 50%. there has to be overlap. I don't understand the debate.

Your first statement is false but your second statement is true. Consider:

Many Americans live in California. True.
Most Americans live in California. False.

Many people have been to France. True.
Most people have been to France. False.

[well-hello-there]

Many = > 50%. there has to be overlap. I don't understand the debate.

Many=/= Most.

Many=Some


hth

[Easy-E]

Many = > 50%. there has to be overlap. I don't understand the debate.

Is this a hard rule that many indicates more than half? I just assumed "many" and "some" were basically interchangable.


EDIT: Didn't see second page, questioned answer.

[Curry]

Many has the same logical definition as some. Most = 50%+1
Many and Some just mean 1 or more. They both can mean all, (Some/Many people who read this are also breathing).
The difference between some and many is that many is a "large relative quantity" and some is a "small relative quantity". There does not need to be an overlap "many people currently live in china and many people currently live in the usa." This does not mean that some people who live in china also live in the USA.

[alexonfyre]

Many has the same logical definition as some. Most = 50%+1
Many and Some just mean 1 or more. They both can mean all, (Some/Many people who read this are also breathing).
The difference between some and many is that many is a "large relative quantity" and some is a "small relative quantity". There does not need to be an overlap "many people are physically in china and many people currently are physically in the usa." This does not mean that some people who are physically in china are also currently, physically in the USA.

Fixed for objectivity.

(People learning the LSAT may still be at the phase where they reject an argument's validity on the basis of soundness.)

[Easy-E]

Many has the same logical definition as some. Most = 50%+1
Many and Some just mean 1 or more. They both can mean all, (Some/Many people who read this are also breathing).
The difference between some and many is that many is a "large relative quantity" and some is a "small relative quantity". There does not need to be an overlap "many people are physically in china and many people currently are physically in the usa." This does not mean that some people who are physically in china are also currently, physically in the USA.

Fixed for objectivity.

(People learning the LSAT may still be at the phase where they reject an argument's validity on the basis of soundness.)

But it seems like this specific example (physically being somewhere) eliminates the possibility of cross-over, no? If you said "Many people have dark hair and many people wear glasses". In a case like this, their COULD be people with dark and glasses, but its not necessarily true. Or am I missing the point?

[alexonfyre]

Many has the same logical definition as some. Most = 50%+1
Many and Some just mean 1 or more. They both can mean all, (Some/Many people who read this are also breathing).
The difference between some and many is that many is a "large relative quantity" and some is a "small relative quantity". There does not need to be an overlap "many people are physically in china and many people currently are physically in the usa." This does not mean that some people who are physically in china are also currently, physically in the USA.

Fixed for objectivity.

(People learning the LSAT may still be at the phase where they reject an argument's validity on the basis of soundness.)

But it seems like this specific example (physically being somewhere) eliminates the possibility of cross-over, no? If you said "Many people have dark hair and many people wear glasses". In a case like this, their COULD be people with dark and glasses, but its not necessarily true. Or am I missing the point?

Yeah, I changed his example to a mutually exclusive grouping to illustrate that just because there are many in either group does not mean there are some in both groups.
For comparison saying "Many people are over 6 feet tall" and "Many people are under 6 feet tall" does not mean that "Some people are both over and under 6 feet tall."

When you use non exclusive groupings, then you get something like "Many people have brown hair" and "Many people wear glasses" so it is POSSIBLE that Some have brown hair and wear glasses, but it is by no means necessary. You have to check all outside knowledge at the door when you answer these questions. Just because you or someone you know has brown hair and wears glasses means nothing in the context of the problem. In Logic Land it is possible that 30 percent of people have brown hair and good vision, and 30 percent wear glasses and have blond hair and 40 percent have red hair and good vision, you just don't know.

[Curry]

Many has the same logical definition as some. Most = 50%+1
Many and Some just mean 1 or more. They both can mean all, (Some/Many people who read this are also breathing).
The difference between some and many is that many is a "large relative quantity" and some is a "small relative quantity". There does not need to be an overlap "many people are physically in china and many people currently are physically in the usa." This does not mean that some people who are physically in china are also currently, physically in the USA.

Fixed for objectivity.

(People learning the LSAT may still be at the phase where they reject an argument's validity on the basis of soundness.)

But it seems like this specific example (physically being somewhere) eliminates the possibility of cross-over, no? If you said "Many people have dark hair and many people wear glasses". In a case like this, their COULD be people with dark and glasses, but its not necessarily true. Or am I missing the point?

Yeah, I changed his example to a mutually exclusive grouping to illustrate that just because there are many in either group does not mean there are some in both groups.
For comparison saying "Many people are over 6 feet tall" and "Many people are under 6 feet tall" does not mean that "Some people are both over and under 6 feet tall."

When you use non exclusive groupings, then you get something like "Many people have brown hair" and "Many people wear glasses" so it is POSSIBLE that Some have brown hair and wear glasses, but it is by no means necessary. You have to check all outside knowledge at the door when you answer these questions. Just because you or someone you know has brown hair and wears glasses means nothing in the context of the problem. In Logic Land it is possible that 30 percent of people have brown hair and good vision, and 30 percent wear glasses and have blond hair and 40 percent have red hair and good vision, you just don't know.

I feel like this point was already made.

[alexonfyre]

Fixed for objectivity.

(People learning the LSAT may still be at the phase where they reject an argument's validity on the basis of soundness.)

But it seems like this specific example (physically being somewhere) eliminates the possibility of cross-over, no? If you said "Many people have dark hair and many people wear glasses". In a case like this, their COULD be people with dark and glasses, but its not necessarily true. Or am I missing the point?

Yeah, I changed his example to a mutually exclusive grouping to illustrate that just because there are many in either group does not mean there are some in both groups.
For comparison saying "Many people are over 6 feet tall" and "Many people are under 6 feet tall" does not mean that "Some people are both over and under 6 feet tall."

When you use non exclusive groupings, then you get something like "Many people have brown hair" and "Many people wear glasses" so it is POSSIBLE that Some have brown hair and wear glasses, but it is by no means necessary. You have to check all outside knowledge at the door when you answer these questions. Just because you or someone you know has brown hair and wears glasses means nothing in the context of the problem. In Logic Land it is possible that 30 percent of people have brown hair and good vision, and 30 percent wear glasses and have blond hair and 40 percent have red hair and good vision, you just don't know.

I feel like this point was already made.

It was, but emarxnj was still confused to why I said it that way, so I reiterated it.

[Easy-E]

But it seems like this specific example (physically being somewhere) eliminates the possibility of cross-over, no? If you said "Many people have dark hair and many people wear glasses". In a case like this, their COULD be people with dark and glasses, but its not necessarily true. Or am I missing the point?

Yeah, I changed his example to a mutually exclusive grouping to illustrate that just because there are many in either group does not mean there are some in both groups.
For comparison saying "Many people are over 6 feet tall" and "Many people are under 6 feet tall" does not mean that "Some people are both over and under 6 feet tall."

When you use non exclusive groupings, then you get something like "Many people have brown hair" and "Many people wear glasses" so it is POSSIBLE that Some have brown hair and wear glasses, but it is by no means necessary. You have to check all outside knowledge at the door when you answer these questions. Just because you or someone you know has brown hair and wears glasses means nothing in the context of the problem. In Logic Land it is possible that 30 percent of people have brown hair and good vision, and 30 percent wear glasses and have blond hair and 40 percent have red hair and good vision, you just don't know.

I feel like this point was already made.

It was, but emarxnj was still confused to why I said it that way, so I reiterated it.

And I appreciate the clarification, thank you.

[inmans]

...

[mac35352]

great thread but now I need some clarification.
*Many=some
*two somes can't create an inference, therefore a many and a some can't create an inference. Example: some members have money to invest. No member lives in the city but many work there.
From this statement we infer: * some members who have money to invest do not live in the city.
But not this: *Some members who have money to invest work in the city.
what if we switch the many with a most? could we infer: *some members who have money to invest work in the suburbs.

[alexonfyre]

great thread but now I need some clarification.
*Many=some
*two somes can't create an inference, therefore a many and a some can't create an inference. Example: some members have money to invest. No member lives in the city but many work there.
From this statement we infer: * some members who have money to invest do not live in the city.
But not this: *Some members who have money to invest work in the city.
what if we switch the many with a most? could we infer: *some members who have money to invest work in the suburbs.

This post confuses me, but if I understand correctly you mean this

(conditional + conditional = logical probability)

Many/Some/1 + Many/Some/1 = possible
Many/Some/1 + Most = more likely than not
Many/Some/1 + All/None = NECESSARY or NECESSARILY NOT (respectively)
Most + Most = NECESSARY
Most + All/None = NECESSARY or NECESSARILY NOT (respectively)
All/None + All/None = Transitive Inference

Does that help?

[suspicious android]

"Most a are x, most a are y, therefore some x are y"

This is actually incorrect.

What you want to say: Most a are x; most a are y. Therefore, there is at least one (some) a that is both x and y. Gotta be careful with that language.

No, it isn't incorrect. Your formulation is a valid inference, but so is Kurst's.

Most children are short.
Most children are shy.
Therefore, some shy things are short. OR, some children are both shy and short.

[Curry]

"Most a are x, most a are y, therefore some x are y"

This is actually incorrect.

What you want to say: Most a are x; most a are y. Therefore, there is at least one (some) a that is both x and y. Gotta be careful with that language.

No, it isn't incorrect. Your formulation is a valid inference, but so is Kurst's.

Most children are short.
Most children are shy.
Therefore, some shy things are short. OR, some children are both shy and short.

X Most Y
X Most Z

From here you can conclude:
Y some Z
Z some Y
X some Y and Z

[mac35352]

great thread but now I need some clarification.
*Many=some
*two somes can't create an inference, therefore a many and a some can't create an inference. Example: some members have money to invest. No member lives in the city but many work there.
From this statement we infer: * some members who have money to invest do not live in the city.
But not this: *Some members who have money to invest work in the city.
what if we switch the many with a most? could we infer: *some members who have money to invest work in the suburbs.

This post confuses me, but if I understand correctly you mean this

(conditional + conditional = logical probability)

Many/Some/1 + Many/Some/1 = possible
Many/Some/1 + Most = more likely than not
Many/Some/1 + All/None = NECESSARY or NECESSARILY NOT (respectively)
Most + Most = NECESSARY
Most + All/None = NECESSARY or NECESSARILY NOT (respectively)
All/None + All/None = Transitive Inference

Does that help?

My understanding is that some/many + some/many: no inference.

[Curry]

My understanding is that some/many + some/many: no inference.

They are logical equivalents and you can make no inference from a statement with only some and many. You can make a connection between two mosts and an all and some/many/most.

[inmans]

...

[alexonfyre]

great thread but now I need some clarification.
*Many=some
*two somes can't create an inference, therefore a many and a some can't create an inference. Example: some members have money to invest. No member lives in the city but many work there.
From this statement we infer: * some members who have money to invest do not live in the city.
But not this: *Some members who have money to invest work in the city.
what if we switch the many with a most? could we infer: *some members who have money to invest work in the suburbs.

This post confuses me, but if I understand correctly you mean this

(conditional + conditional = logical probability)

Many/Some/1 + Many/Some/1 = possible
Many/Some/1 + Most = more likely than not
Many/Some/1 + All/None = NECESSARY or NECESSARILY NOT (respectively)
Most + Most = NECESSARY
Most + All/None = NECESSARY or NECESSARILY NOT (respectively)
All/None + All/None = Transitive Inference

Does that help?

My understanding is that some/many + some/many: no inference.

I would generally put no inference, however I have seen a rare question with a transitive "Some + Some" "Could be true" answer.

[birdlaw117]

I haven't seen this point made so I'll mention it.

I believe the difference between "some" and "many" is that "some" = 1 to 100 and "many" = 2 to 100.

This doesn't make a difference as far as making inferences goes, just thought I would mention it though.

[Easy-E]

So the hard rules would be...

Some = 1+
Most = > Half
Many = 2+


Can any of these allow for ALL? If you say "Many X are Y", is it POSSIBLE that in fact "All X are Y", or does it only allow for any amount below 100%

[alexonfyre]

So the hard rules would be...

Some = 1+
Most = > Half
Many = 2+


Can any of these allow for ALL? If you say "Many X are Y", is it POSSIBLE that in fact "All X are Y", or does it only allow for any amount below 100%

At this point the discussion is so far removed from pragmatism it doesn't even matter, but yes, all of them are true if "All" is true, but if you know "All" you would just say that.

[well-hello-there]

I haven't seen this point made so I'll mention it.

I believe the difference between "some" and "many" is that "some" = 1 to 100 and "many" = 2 to 100.

This doesn't make a difference as far as making inferences goes, just thought I would mention it though.

wrong.

many = 1 or more

[nshapkar]

Many has the same logical definition as some. Most = 50%+1
Many and Some just mean 1 or more. They both can mean all, (Some/Many people who read this are also breathing).
The difference between some and many is that many is a "large relative quantity" and some is a "small relative quantity". There does not need to be an overlap "many people currently live in china and many people currently live in the usa." This does not mean that some people who live in china also live in the USA.

+1