(LR) PT#45, S#4, Q#16... wtf Forum

[sighsigh]

A majority of people can achieve indispensability only in private relationships.
---
(E): Therefore, a minority of people can achieve indispensability outside private relationships.

Is this the most unjustified answer in the history of the LSAT or what? If I state 60% of people have red noses, that does not mean 40% do not have red noses. I know this is a 'most strongly support' and not strictly 'must be true' but you have to make some pretty radical assumptions for (E) to be true.

[boblawlob]

A majority of people can achieve indispensability only in private relationships.
---
(E): Therefore, a minority of people can achieve indispensability outside private relationships.

Is this the most unjustified answer in the history of the LSAT or what? If I state 60% of people have red noses, that does not mean 40% do not have red noses. I know this is a 'most strongly support' and not strictly 'must be true' but you have to make some pretty radical assumptions for (E) to be true.

You're looking at the stimulus all wrong.

-Being happy means everyone needs you (aka you are indispensable)
- For most people, this feeling of being indispensable is strictly limited to within their family/friends circle.


So wouldn't it follow that the majority of people who are indispensable to their family are NOT indispensable to everyone else outside of their family and THEREFORE unhappy (contrapositive of first statement).

Shortcut to answers by eliminating wrong answers:
A. WAY too strong (can't achieve ANY???...wth)
B. WAY too strong (nature of modern society...wtf?)
C. Reversal of the first premise + combo with most statement
D. appreciating jobs that they don't have...what the hell does that have to do with anything

[sighsigh]

Ty for responding boblawlob. But I believe my stated argument is correct. I just skipped a step. I will write it out in full for you:

1. Happy => needed (i.e. indispensible). (Stimulus first sentence)
2. Majority of people => feel indispensible only within interpersonal relationships. (Stimulus second sentence)
---
3. Minority of people => ~feel happy only within interpersonal relationships. (What (E) states)
4. Minority of people => ~feel indispensible only within interpersonal relationships (since happy => indispensible).

Take 2. and 4. and you have my OP. What I am saying is that I do not agree that 4. can be reasonably inferred from 2.

[boblawlob]

Ty for responding boblawlob. But I believe my stated argument is correct. I just skipped a step. I will write it out in full for you:

1. Happy => needed (i.e. indispensible). (Stimulus first sentence)
2. Majority of people => feel indispensible only within interpersonal relationships. (Stimulus second sentence)
---
3. Minority of people => ~feel happy only within interpersonal relationships. (What (E) states)
4. Minority of people => ~feel indispensible only within interpersonal relationships (since happy => indispensible).

Take 2. and 4. and you have my OP. What I am saying is that I do not agree that 4. can be reasonably inferred from 2.

4 is wrong. It's

Minority of people => feel indispensable/feel that they are needed by others (meaning EVERYONE).

Which is in line with #3 aka E.

Premise was: Happy => indispensable (is not exclusive to interpersonal relationships)

[BlaqBella]

AC (E) is directly supported with the first two lines.

Fewer than a majority - anywhere from 0-50%

The stim tells us that most (implies majority) can only achieve a feeling of being needed (and thus achieve happiness) within the circle of family and friends. Which means there are many (fewer than a majority) who are exceptions to that rule.

Tricky question.

[bp shinners]

The stim tells us that most (implies majority) can only achieve a feeling of being needed (and thus achieve happiness) within the circle of family and friends. Which means there are many (fewer than a majority) who are exceptions to that rule.

I haven't looked at the question, but I believe this is wrong.

"Most" doesn't preclude "all", so if I say "Most people live in the Milky Way galaxy", I could potentially mean "all", and there wouldn't be a minority who are the exception to this rule.

[BlaqBella]

The stim tells us that most (implies majority) can only achieve a feeling of being needed (and thus achieve happiness) within the circle of family and friends. Which means there are many (fewer than a majority) who are exceptions to that rule.

I haven't looked at the question, but I believe this is wrong.

"Most" doesn't preclude "all", so if I say "Most people live in the Milky Way galaxy", I could potentially mean "all", and there wouldn't be a minority who are the exception to this rule.

I'm not quite sure I follow. I can see my error where I take "many" to mean fewer than majority when in fact many can mean anyhwere from more than one to all but I was under the impression "most" and "majority" means exactly the same thing. I was not excluding "all" from this definition.


That said, when the LSAT uses "most" and "many" in the same stimulus, what can properly be inferred from this relation?

[sighsigh]

The stim tells us that most (implies majority) can only achieve a feeling of being needed (and thus achieve happiness) within the circle of family and friends. Which means there are many (fewer than a majority) who are exceptions to that rule.

I haven't looked at the question, but I believe this is wrong.

"Most" doesn't preclude "all", so if I say "Most people live in the Milky Way galaxy", I could potentially mean "all", and there wouldn't be a minority who are the exception to this rule.

Thank you bp shinners! This is the entire point of my thread. What BlaqBella stated cannot be done.

If I state a majority are X, you cannot infer that a minority are ~X. The minority could still be X.

[BlaqBella]

If I state a majority are X, you cannot infer that a minority are ~X. The minority could still be X.

That is neither what I nor the correct answer is stating.

What I am inferring is that if majority are X we know for certain there cannot be a majority who are not X (in other words, fewer than a majority are not X).

This stim is playing on the relation between "most" and "fewer than a majority" and I would like BP Shinners to provide his input on how to approach stims that compare/contrast the same.

[sighsigh]

You know what... I think I see my mistake. I have been equating "fewer than majority," which is [0, 50], with "minority," which is (0, 50).

If I state a majority are X, you cannot infer that a minority are ~X. The minority could still be X.

However, if I state a majority are X, then you CAN infer that less than a majority are ~X.

(E) is stating the latter.

I think BlaqBella got at this. Ok, ty to all who responded.

The stim tells us that most (implies majority) can only achieve a feeling of being needed (and thus achieve happiness) within the circle of family and friends. Which means there are many (fewer than a majority) who are exceptions to that rule.

However, I believe this is still wrong in one way. You infer "fewer than a majority" from "many." I do not believe that can be done. Fewer than a majority is [0, 50]. Many is (0, 100]. If you get rid of the word 'many,' this is correct.

[BlaqBella]

FYI, Manhattan just posted this:



Source: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &start=100

[CristopherG]

I don't get what all the chaos is about. This question seems pretty simple to me, and I don't understand the purpose of all these diagrams. They seem like overkill and a distraction on this question. The argument is pretty simple:

People cannot possess characteristic A without perceiving themselves as B. Most people can only perceive themselves as B in condition X, because almost everyone knows they are replaceable in condition Y.

Any disagreement? Draw your arrows and pictograms if you think it helps, but this is what they should be diagramming. Here's how this summary applies to the possible choices.

A) Nope, we don't have anything in the premises to establish this. This is saying that if an individual becomes aware that s/he is not B in condition Y, s/he cannot possess characteristic A in ANY condition. Too broad.

B) Obviously incorrect answer, uses a bunch of buzz words that aren't in the premises.

C) Nope. This answer is making two mistakes; it is assuming that the word "can" in the second sentence is actually "do", and it is assuming that perceiving oneself as B means that one is A, reversing the flow of logic.

D) Another dumb answer choice.

E) At this point, you should be fairly confident E is going to be right; a read confirms this fairly quickly. We know that B is required for A. We know that most people can ONLY achieve B in condition X. Therefore, it is correct to state that fewer than a majority (IE; Population - "most" = Fewer than a majority) can achieve happiness in conditions other than X.


So, OP, in short, LSAC is right. I think you're making this question a lot trickier than it needs to be with all the diagrams. Try a less mechanical and more holistic approach - it really does work wonders.

[bp shinners]

The stim tells us that most (implies majority) can only achieve a feeling of being needed (and thus achieve happiness) within the circle of family and friends. Which means there are many (fewer than a majority) who are exceptions to that rule.

I haven't looked at the question, but I believe this is wrong.

"Most" doesn't preclude "all", so if I say "Most people live in the Milky Way galaxy", I could potentially mean "all", and there wouldn't be a minority who are the exception to this rule.

I'm not quite sure I follow. I can see my error where I take "many" to mean fewer than majority when in fact many can mean anyhwere from more than one to all but I was under the impression "most" and "majority" means exactly the same thing. I was not excluding "all" from this definition.


That said, when the LSAT uses "most" and "many" in the same stimulus, what can properly be inferred from this relation?

My problem with your original statement is that you say "many are exceptions to that rule". If you had said "fewer than a majority are exceptions", I would haven't an issue.

"Many" means at least one. But if I say most/a majority are (which do mean the same thing), then I don't know that at least one aren't (sorry for the sloppy grammar, but I wanted to make it clear). If you instead just said "fewer than a majority", it would have been correct, because that leaves open the possibility of 0. But "many" doesn't, so it's not 100% correct.

[BlaqBella]

The stim tells us that most (implies majority) can only achieve a feeling of being needed (and thus achieve happiness) within the circle of family and friends. Which means there are many (fewer than a majority) who are exceptions to that rule.

I haven't looked at the question, but I believe this is wrong.

"Most" doesn't preclude "all", so if I say "Most people live in the Milky Way galaxy", I could potentially mean "all", and there wouldn't be a minority who are the exception to this rule.

I'm not quite sure I follow. I can see my error where I take "many" to mean fewer than majority when in fact many can mean anyhwere from more than one to all but I was under the impression "most" and "majority" means exactly the same thing. I was not excluding "all" from this definition.


That said, when the LSAT uses "most" and "many" in the same stimulus, what can properly be inferred from this relation?

My problem with your original statement is that you say "many are exceptions to that rule". If you had said "fewer than a majority are exceptions", I would haven't an issue.

"Many" means at least one. But if I say most/a majority are (which do mean the same thing), then I don't know that at least one aren't (sorry for the sloppy grammar, but I wanted to make it clear). If you instead just said "fewer than a majority", it would have been correct, because that leaves open the possibility of 0. But "many" doesn't, so it's not 100% correct.

Yes, okay, I agree it was an error on my part to synonymize many with fewer than a majority.

Thanks for clarifying.