Top Law Schools

Can someone explain how these words are used within the lsat. Let's say if some was used in the stimulus would you get rid of an answer choice that had "many" in it?

straight out of the formal logic section of the LRB...
using a scale of 100 entities
some = 1-100 entities (e.g. more than one, possibly all)
all = 100 entities, pure and simple
most = 51-100 entities (e.g. more than half, possibly all)

many only implies some, in other words it means the same thing, if my memory serves me.

Blindc1rca wrote: many only implies some, in other words it means the same thing, if my memory serves me.

This is correct.

cubswin wrote:

Blindc1rca wrote: many only implies some, in other words it means the same thing, if my memory serves me.

This is correct.

ALMOST correct. Many implies a plurality (ie greater than 1), while some can mean a single entity. 99.9999999% of the time they're the same though. I've never actually seen the LSAT exploit this difference that I can recall.

Another note is that "A few" = many, while "few" = not all.

rossrobert wrote:Can someone explain how these words are used within the lsat. Let's say if some was used in the stimulus would you get rid of an answer choice that had "many" in it?

Though I am not an expert nor I am a teacher but one thing I found is that people look at LSAT as something very complicated or something which uses the meaning of words in different context. THESE WORDS SHOW QUANTITY AND THAT'S WHAT EXACTLY THESE WORDS DO IN LSAT! Some, much, many, least, few, more are quantity indicators BUT the role of eagle eye and active reading comes when people are not able to translate the "actual happening in passage" with these words.

What is "actual happening in passage"?
Actual happening is passage is what is stated or implied in passage in form of facts or arguements EVEN though it was later TRANSLATED into a quantity word.

Let's say passage is about the breeds of dog and talk about Golden Retriever, Greyhound, German Shepherd, Labrador etc and after passage in questions, instead of using term 'Breeds of Dog" which is actually discussed or argued in passage, the term "many breeds" or "many types of dog" may be used in questions. Therefore, the quantity indicators have NO SPECIAL or MAGICAL MEANING in context of LSAT. They are used to show quanity everywhere else and that's what they do in LSAT.

johnmckinsley wrote: Though I am not an expert nor I am a teacher but one thing I found is that people look at LSAT as something very complicated or something which uses the meaning of words in different context. THESE WORDS SHOW QUANTITY AND THAT'S WHAT EXACTLY THESE WORDS DO IN LSAT! Some, much, many, least, few, more are quantity indicators BUT the role of eagle eye and active reading comes when people are not able to translate the "actual happening in passage" with these words.

What is "actual happening in passage"?
Actual happening is passage is what is stated or implied in passage in form of facts or arguements EVEN though it was later TRANSLATED into a quantity word.

Let's say passage is about the breeds of dog and talk about Golden Retriever, Greyhound, German Shepherd, Labrador etc and after passage in questions, instead of using term 'Breeds of Dog" which is actually discussed or argued in passage, the term "many breeds" or "many types of dog" may be used in questions. Therefore, the quantity indicators have NO SPECIAL or MAGICAL MEANING in context of LSAT. They are used to show quanity everywhere else and that's what they do in LSAT.

Mind = blown

Well what I had a question is let's say if the stimulus said " Most people like sushi" and then its a must be true question would you then get rid of the following answer choices: " a few people like sushi", " some people like sushi" or could these be correct ( I know I am not giving the best example)?

rossrobert wrote:Well what I had a question is let's say if the stimulus said " Most people like sushi" and then its a must be true question would you then get rid of the following answer choices: " a few people like sushi", " some people like sushi" or could these be correct ( I know I am not giving the best example)?

'Most people like sushi' implies that 'a few people like sushi'. It also implies that 'some people like sushi'. It does not imply that 'all people like sushi' or 'few people like sushi'.

rossrobert wrote:Well what I had a question is let's say if the stimulus said " Most people like sushi" and then its a must be true question would you then get rid of the following answer choices: " a few people like sushi", " some people like sushi" or could these be correct ( I know I am not giving the best example)?

If "Most people like sushi" it MUST BE TRUE that at least some/a few people like sushi so those would be the correct choices. It may make more sense to quantify it. So if there are 100 people used for the purposes of the stimulus. If most people like sushi, 51 or more people like sushi. So the answer choice you gave could be though of as, MUST 1 or more people (some) like sushi, which overlaps with 51+ (most).

Note: After rereading my explanation it is fairly confusing...sigh.

I agree with Audio Tech Guy, especially one the fine point about "some" and "many" not being exactly equal. Also surprised that the LRB would imply that "some" must be plural. It might be one of those things that they know isn't necessarily true but decided is true enough for LSAT work. There's a couple areas where they do that (negation of conditional statements being the first example I can think of).

Anyway, the one thing I do think should be pointed out is that a very, very frequent trick used with these quantifiers is getting people to incorrectly infer things that "make sense". I think on just about every test there's some opportunity to think that since some X's are Y's, there must also be some X's that are NOT Y's. Since in normal speech if I said that "some tables are wood" you'd of course assume that I also meant "some tables are not wood". This would not necessarily be true on an LSAT question, and it's a trick answer choice for a must be true/inference type question. That's how they typically get you on the LSAT with quantifiers, not tricking you between the difference of a some and a most statement (although that happens).

cmaas wrote:

rossrobert wrote:Well what I had a question is let's say if the stimulus said " Most people like sushi" and then its a must be true question would you then get rid of the following answer choices: " a few people like sushi", " some people like sushi" or could these be correct ( I know I am not giving the best example)?

'Most people like sushi' implies that 'a few people like sushi'. It also implies that 'some people like sushi'. It does not imply that 'all people like sushi' or 'few people like sushi'.

whoa. really? if "few" means "not all", then why can't most people like sushi imply few people like sushi? is that because most could include all?

Edit: I just read the second post on this thread. I guess so. Interesting.

MissLucky wrote:

cmaas wrote:

rossrobert wrote:Well what I had a question is let's say if the stimulus said " Most people like sushi" and then its a must be true question would you then get rid of the following answer choices: " a few people like sushi", " some people like sushi" or could these be correct ( I know I am not giving the best example)?

'Most people like sushi' implies that 'a few people like sushi'. It also implies that 'some people like sushi'. It does not imply that 'all people like sushi' or 'few people like sushi'.

whoa. really? if "few" means "not all", then why can't most people like sushi imply few people like sushi? is that because most could include all?

Edit: I just read the second post on this thread. I guess so. Interesting.

Because most could mean ALL. so we don't know for sure if -all (=few) people like sushi or not..

Edit: just saw your edit