Top Law Schools

Alright, I've been studying non-stop for the past few days, and my brain might be fried so I am missing something

I have the Blueprint books and I am re-studying on my own, so I don't have a teacher to call. In the 1st Blueprint book when there's a discussion about logical force, and "All" "Some" "Most" propositions, the book states the following about the "Principles to remember about 'some' statements"

1) "some" statements are reversible
2) "some" statements have no contrapositive
3) "some statements could be "one"
4) "some" statements could be "all"

NOW that makes sense, all of my understanding of "some" is that it basically represents anything thats 0+1, so any probability from 1 - 100. Thus, if you say "Some of you might miss work this year." it also means "Just one of you will miss work this year" or "All of you will miss work this year."

Okay i get that all. Here's where Blueprint totally threw me off

In lesson 6 they are discussing Fallacies. I get all the flaws just fine up until I come to one of the LAST finals which is in the "Catagorical Mistakes" section. In that section one flaw is stated as the "All vs. Most vs. Some" Fallacies, and what is written says "While it is permissible to draw a weaker conclusion that is warranted, it is a logical error to draw a stronger conclusion than warranted. That SOME people enjoy broccoli does not imply that EVERYONE enjoys broccoli. "SOME" premises cannot justify "most" or "all" conclusions. "Most" premises cannot justify "all" conclusions.

*******

Ok what am I missing here, cuz I know there is something.

can "some" be 0+1 to 100 (all) or is it not? can a valid conclusion be draw? is the flaw I stated incorrect or wrong? i don't know.

BTW the book I have is an LSAT book that's 2 years old from them, so could this just have been something that was incorrectly written?

Help me figure out what's missing here, it has really gotten under my skin and I am stuck on it.

It's just saying that you can't use a "some" premise to justify a "most" conclusion or a "most" premise to justify an "all" conclusion. A "weaker" premise doesn't warrant drawing a "stronger" conclusion.

steven3579 wrote:It's just saying that you can't use a "some" premise to justify a "most" conclusion or a "most" premise to justify an "all" conclusion. A "weaker" premise doesn't warrant drawing a "stronger" conclusion.

I get that and I would have been fine w/ that if I had not read that "Some" could also mean "All" - isn't that a way to conclude that "some" could justify an "all" conclusion?

I would be very surprised if an LSAT question depended on reading "some" as leaving the door open for "all." Nonetheless, the distinction they draw is that it is possible for "some" to be "all," but you cannot read "some" and conclude "all"; this is what they're saying with "does not imply"--it's drawing a conclusion that is the misstep. It's the difference between "could imply" and "does imply;" "some" is vague enough to leave room for "all," but also too vague to conclude "all."

"some" could mean "all" but i think what the book is eluding to is that "some" doesn't prove "all"

ConMan345 wrote:I would be very surprised if an LSAT question depended on reading "some" as leaving the door open for "all." Nonetheless, the distinction they draw is that it is possible for "some" to be "all," but you cannot read "some" and conclude "all"; this is what they're saying with "does not imply"--it's drawing a conclusion that is the misstep. It's the difference between "could imply" and "does imply;" "some" is vague enough to leave room for "all," but also too vague to conclude "all."

PERFECT explanation! my mind was going there but I needed to be 100% sure so that I could move on. Do any of you have the problem of moving on w/ lessons when you get stuck on not fully understanding something?

steven3579 wrote:"some" could mean "all" but i think what the book is eluding to is that "some" doesn't prove "all"

PERFECT! thank you thank you thank you!

Kuchulu wrote:

ConMan345 wrote:I would be very surprised if an LSAT question depended on reading "some" as leaving the door open for "all." Nonetheless, the distinction they draw is that it is possible for "some" to be "all," but you cannot read "some" and conclude "all"; this is what they're saying with "does not imply"--it's drawing a conclusion that is the misstep. It's the difference between "could imply" and "does imply;" "some" is vague enough to leave room for "all," but also too vague to conclude "all."

PERFECT explanation! my mind was going there but I needed to be 100% sure so that I could move on. Do any of you have the problem of moving on w/ lessons when you get stuck on not fully understanding something?

Thanks : ) anytime

As for having a hard time moving on, yes, I do. I think that's fine with LSAT studying though. There is so little to actually recall that making sure you have a very good working knowledge of each part is worth the time.

ConMan345 wrote:

Kuchulu wrote:

ConMan345 wrote:I would be very surprised if an LSAT question depended on reading "some" as leaving the door open for "all." Nonetheless, the distinction they draw is that it is possible for "some" to be "all," but you cannot read "some" and conclude "all"; this is what they're saying with "does not imply"--it's drawing a conclusion that is the misstep. It's the difference between "could imply" and "does imply;" "some" is vague enough to leave room for "all," but also too vague to conclude "all."

PERFECT explanation! my mind was going there but I needed to be 100% sure so that I could move on. Do any of you have the problem of moving on w/ lessons when you get stuck on not fully understanding something?

Thanks : ) anytime

As for having a hard time moving on, yes, I do. I think that's fine with LSAT studying though. There is so little to actually recall that making sure you have a very good working knowledge of each part is worth the time.

I feel extra insecure because I moved to the US and learned English when I was 14, and i've ALWAYS struggled with certain types of classifications and just language problem solving in general. So, I go EXTRA slow and have had to use a lot of outside sources to really make sure that I am getting the concepts. That's why I was sooo stuck on this question that I had, I just kept reading the first description and going back to the flaw and I was like "I DON'T UNDERSTAND!"

I just made another post about some stuff that I've used to really help me w/ the comprehension, hopefully it helps some others.

steven3579 wrote:"some" could mean "all" but i think what the book is eluding to is that "some" doesn't prove "all"

This.