Many people are X, and Many people are Y Forum

[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.

wrong.

many = 1 or more

You can treat it that way for LSAT purposes, but in reality it is 2 or more. Many is synonymous with multiple meaning more than one.

[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

You can treat it that way for LSAT purposes, but in reality it is 2 or more. Many is synonymous with multiple meaning more than one.

This IS for LSAT purposes. NOT real life.
Also for LSAT purposes, some=0 or more

[birdlaw117]

This IS for LSAT purposes. NOT real life.
Also for LSAT purposes, some=0 or more

Quit saying things that are wrong. Some is more than zero. If some could equal zero it would provide no insight, as it could be equal to anything.

I'm going to assume you're just trolling and give you the benefit of the doubt.

[dakatz]

Some = 1 or more. Could be up to 100%. Some is the OPPOSITE of zero. Zero means none. Some is another way of saying NOT none

Most = greater than 50%

Few = a relatively small quantity. The only thing you can with certainty is that there is at least one. Thus, if you have "few" then you can say you have "some"

Many = a relatively large quantity. Don't try and assign a meaning or number to it. The only deduction you can make for LSAT purposes is 1 or more. Thus you can say you have some. In the real world, many usually means 2 or more, but if you define it as one or more, it never leads to a problem on LSAT.

Always remember that many and few are entirely relative. If you deduce anything aside from 1 or more (without being given more info) you made a mistake.

I tutored LSAT for awhile and went through each and every LR question to ensure that these definitions are exact for LSAT purposes and will never need to be altered for a single question.

[suspicious android]

This IS for LSAT purposes. NOT real life.
Also for LSAT purposes, some=0 or more

The LSAT doesn't use words in ways that are inconsistent to their formal meaning. "Many" always implies a plural number in real life and the LSAT. Some always implies at least one. They are not precisely identical.

[well-hello-there]

This IS for LSAT purposes. NOT real life.
Also for LSAT purposes, some=0 or more

Quit saying things that are wrong. Some is more than zero. If some could equal zero it would provide no insight, as it could be equal to anything.

I'm going to assume you're just trolling and give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not trolling. I'm wrong on the some=0. My bad. Going off of what I remember from the powerscore LR bible, some=1-100 many=1-100

[birdlaw117]

This IS for LSAT purposes. NOT real life.
Also for LSAT purposes, some=0 or more

Quit saying things that are wrong. Some is more than zero. If some could equal zero it would provide no insight, as it could be equal to anything.

I'm going to assume you're just trolling and give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not trolling. I'm wrong on the some=0. My bad. Going off of what I remember from the powerscore LR bible, some=1-100 many=1-100

I believe in the bibles it says many is 2-100. But like has been mentioned many (read 2 or more ) times ITT, it doesn't provide any additional value for inference making.

I suppose the exception to that would be if the population size is 3 or less, but that isn't something to worry about.

[well-hello-there]

I believe in the bibles it says many is 2-100. But like has been mentioned many (read 2 or more ) times ITT, it doesn't provide any additional value for inference making.

I suppose the exception to that would be if the population size is 3 or less, but that isn't something to worry about.

I loaned mine out to a friend so I can't reference it now. I'll admit I might be wrong but the only reason "many=1 or more" sticks out in my mind is because when I first read it in the LR Bible, I was like "Bullshit! Many is plural.". oh well

[birdlaw117]

I believe in the bibles it says many is 2-100. But like has been mentioned many (read 2 or more ) times ITT, it doesn't provide any additional value for inference making.

I suppose the exception to that would be if the population size is 3 or less, but that isn't something to worry about.

I loaned mine out to a friend so I can't reference it now. I'll admit I might be wrong but the only reason "many=1 or more" sticks out in my mind is because when I first read it in the LR Bible, I was like "Bullshit! Many is plural.". oh well

I could be wrong about that too. I know I have seen it described that way, maybe not in those though.

The point is 1-100 vs 2-100 doesn't add anything, so whatever is easier to use/think about.

[well-hello-there]

The real question (regardless of whose memory is correct) is, can we trust the powerscore LR bible?

[birdlaw117]

The real question (regardless of whose memory is correct) is, can we trust the powerscore LR bible?

I mean, clearly it's a "bible," and pretty much everything ever written in a bible is 100% true beyond all doubt... Right?

[well-hello-there]

The real question (regardless of whose memory is correct) is, can we trust the powerscore LR bible?

I mean, clearly it's a "bible," and pretty much everything ever written in a bible is 100% true beyond all doubt... Right?

from your keyboard, to god's eyes

[Curry]

Some = small relative quantity
Many = large relative quantity
More = 50% +1

[dakatz]

Some = small relative quantity
Many = large relative quantity
More = 50% +1

This is not correct. Please read my list earlier for the correct deinitions. Your definitions of some and more are wrong. And since when is more a quantifier

[Easy-E]

Some = small relative quantity
Many = large relative quantity
Most = 50% +1

Fixed?

[dakatz]

Some = small relative quantity
Many = large relative quantity
Most = 50% +1

Fixed?

Not quite. Some is also wrong. It is "few" that is defined as a small relative quantity.

[mac35352]

FYI: I didn't see any definition for Many is in the bible. General consensus seems to be to treat it as a some.
However, from this thread I concluded that two "Most" could result in an inference but the formal logic chapter in the bible says "Usually, two most's in sequence do not yield an inference" Pg. 330 And it says that no inference can be made unless we have numbers..
Or in the case of A<--m----B---m-->C we can infer: Some As are Cs.

[dakatz]

FYI: I didn't see any definition for Many is in the bible. General consensus seems to be to treat it as a some.
However, from this thread I concluded that two "Most" could result in an inference but the formal logic chapter in the bible says "Usually, two most's in sequence do not yield an inference" Pg. 330 And it says that no inference can be made unless we have numbers..
Or in the case of A<--m----B---m-->C we can infer: Some As are Cs.

Thats correct. The "2 mosts" deduction only occurs when you know 2 things about a single factor. So if most A's are B's, and most A's are also C's, then there is at least a minute overlap between B and C (or the groups could be one and the same for all we know), but you can say with complete certainty that some B's are C's (and vice versa since "some" allows for the variables to be interchangeable)

[mac35352]

FYI: I didn't see any definition for Many is in the bible. General consensus seems to be to treat it as a some.
However, from this thread I concluded that two "Most" could result in an inference but the formal logic chapter in the bible says "Usually, two most's in sequence do not yield an inference" Pg. 330 And it says that no inference can be made unless we have numbers..
Or in the case of A<--m----B---m-->C we can infer: Some As are Cs.

Thats correct. The "2 mosts" deduction only occurs when you know 2 things about a single factor. So if most A's are B's, and most A's are also C's, then there is at least a minute overlap between B and C (or the groups could be one and the same for all we know), but you can say with complete certainty that some B's are C's (and vice versa since "some" allows for the variables to be interchangeable)

Thanks for the clarification!