Top Law Schools

hey guys i got a question

on an LR inference stimulus this is what came up.

you shouldnt look for gardeners for insight into sports.

most gardeners have sports info that is LESS smart than any one who is NOT a gardener.

right answer inference:
some gardeners are no less smarter than any person who is not a gardener?

WTF?! if you make a statement about MOST people then theres a possibility that the minority are NOT like them, but that doesnt necessarily mean that they ARE, it just means that AT THE LEAST, MOST people are like that?

so how the hell is that the right answer?

I honestly can't understand what you have typed.

basically I'm saying lsac has used this formula

most A's are less than B

and inferred that

some A's are at least NOT less than B

this is not inferrable right? assuming the A and B are referring to people

sangr wrote:some gardeners are no less smarter than any person who is not a gardener?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Band A Long wrote:

sangr wrote:some gardeners are no less smarter than any person who is not a gardener?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

lol believe it or not lsac wrote it like that. if anything the original is worded more confusingly. can someone please give their insight

sangr wrote:hey guys i got a question

on an LR inference stimulus this is what came up.

you shouldnt look for gardeners for insight into sports.

most gardeners have sports info that is LESS smart than any one who is NOT a gardener.

right answer inference:
some gardeners are no less smarter as smart than any as some persons who is not a gardener?

This makes more sense. Do you have a test/q #?

Just retype the question please.

sangr wrote:basically I'm saying lsac has used this formula

most A's are less than B

and inferred that

some A's are at least NOT less than B

this is not inferrable right? assuming the A and B are referring to people

Yes, it's right. MOST A's are less than B, but some A's are at least not less than B (they could be either equal to B or greater than B). If you draw a Venn Diagram, it makes sense. If ALL A's were less than B's, then they'd say so.

edit: If you want a more detailed explanation/a Venn Diagram illustrating this scenario, PM me.

fltanglab wrote:If ALL A's were less than B's, then they'd say so.

Since when? If all As are less than B's, aren't most of said A's also less than B's? Is "most but not all" redundant?

EarlCat wrote:

fltanglab wrote:If ALL A's were less than B's, then they'd say so.

Since when? If all As are less than B's, aren't most of said A's also less than B's?

No, ALL of them are. "Most" implies that some aren't. If there's any room for uncertainty, then you can't assume that "most" actually means "all." It's like saying most people score below a 170. That doesn't mean everyone scores below a 170. It means some people score above or at a 170, but most people score below a 170.

Most does not rule out all.

BrianOz1 wrote:Most does not rule out all.

In logic there are certain parameters to the word "most" that may not apply in everyday usage. Just look it up. I was just explaining LSAC's reasoning on that problem.

If I were to address a room of people and say "most of you are (insult)." Someone in the crowd might get angry. I would say, "well, I said most, not all." If most didn't rule out all, that statement wouldn't work to appease the person.

fltanglab wrote:In logic everyday useage there are certain parameters to the word "most" that may not apply in everyday usage logic.

For example: If I were to address a room of people and say "most of you are (insult)." Someone in the crowd might get angry. I would say, "well, I said most, not all."

FTFY

If most didn't rule out all, that statement wouldn't work to appease the person.

It wouldn't work anyway.

fltanglab wrote:"Most" implies that some aren't.

Wrong.
--ImageRemoved--

pretty sure most can mean all.

FuManChusco wrote:pretty sure most can mean all.

Yes, in the rudimentary logic that LSAC tests with the LSAT, the quantifier "most" BY ITSELF (when not also constrained by other context info), allows for the possibility of all.

The bright red geisha is simply wrong, but very adamant about its parameters as a logical quantifier. Maybe in the unspecified LR question there is something else that makes it also 'NOT ALL', but I have no idea which question is being referred to in the thread since it wasn't specified.

You'll have to ask geisha for the specific reference since she implied she knows which LR question the thread is about and also asserts that LSAC intends "most" to mean "not all", which they don't.

Gonna have to agree with the majority of people on here. Also, 'some' can also mean 'all'. Same idea.

"most A's are less than B

and inferred that

some A's are at least NOT less than B"

There are three possibilities here. A < B, A = B, and A > B.

Most of these A's are less than B.

What about the other ones that aren't less than B?

"assuming the A and B are referring to people"

Let's assume person type A is gold and person type B is silver.

Most gold people are less than silver people. But this statement says nothing about the remainder of the gold people. It also specifies "most" by purposely not including some of the gold people. The choice of "most" as opposed to "all" is significant because it's a logic problem and language is always significant for a logic problem. If they meant "all," saying "all" would make the question clearer than just leaving "most," which apparently seems ambiguous to most people (but not all people- for example myself).

Therefore you can infer that some of the gold people, the ones not included in the "most" are either equal to or greater than the silver people.

I don't understand how you think "most" means "all." The definition of "most" is: a great majority of; nearly all; a majority (note JC's usage of "majority" as meaning not all, but most of the people ITT). Plus this is LSAC. They would avoid using "most" in a way that would suggest "all" anyway. Just take it at face value.

Also- not a geisha. She's wearing a cheongsam/qipao (Chinese).

Edit: See I was beat to it.

The statement that

'Most As are less than B'

allows for the possibility of "some A's are at least NOT less than B". No doubt about that. But from JUST "Most As are less than B" it's not something we can infer. And remember, in logical terms "infer" means to be able to logically deduce and arrive at with complete certainty.

In case anyone's wondering, the question is PT2-S2-Q24. Here's another thread in which it was discussed:
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=104712

fltanglab wrote:I don't understand how you think "most" means "all."

Nobody but nobody thinks "most" means "all." But "most," absent any other restriction,allows for all.

Cambridge LSAT wrote:In case anyone's wondering, the question is PT2-S2-Q24.

Then Jeffort nailed it. There is an additional premise that restricts most from being all.

Quoth the stimulus:

"Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talent and political insight are rarely found together."

The inference that "some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well educated persons who are not artists" (i.e. some are not less) comes from this statement, not from any inference (improperly) drawn from the use of "most" instead of "all" in a vacuum.

I found this thread extremely amusing. Good response from Jeffort, he saw it all happening in advance, like some Jedi-level shit. Take home lesson: do not paraphrase when looking for help with an LSAT question.

suspicious android wrote:Good response from Jeffort, he saw it all happening in advance, like some Jedi-level shit.

fltanglab wrote:

BrianOz1 wrote:Most does not rule out all.

In logic there are certain parameters to the word "most" that may not apply in everyday usage. Just look it up. I was just explaining LSAC's reasoning on that problem.

If I were to address a room of people and say "most of you are (insult)." Someone in the crowd might get angry. I would say, "well, I said most, not all." If most didn't rule out all, that statement wouldn't work to appease the person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect