Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=217780
It would be wise to ignore the dictionary definition for all of these words. Almost all words like this will have a dictionary definition that will mislead you. Perhaps there's a logic dictionary or website though.iamgeorgebush wrote:Interesting question. The dictionary definition of "typical" is does not imply any sort of majority requirement. Yet, my first instinct is to translate "A's are typically B's" as "Most A's are B's." But I'm thinking "Some A's are B's" would be the correct translation.
What's the context?
came here to post thisAmbitious1 wrote:For LSAT purposes, typically means "more often than not" which translates to most.
How so? Typically means the same thing as usually. Usually means it's the norm. If something is the norm, it's more likely to be than not to be. So more than half the time. So most.redsox wrote:If it's used in the LSAT to mean "most", that's pretty brutal.
jlb251 wrote:How so? Typically meansredsox wrote:If it's used in the LSAT to mean "most", that's pretty brutal.the same thing as usually. Usually means it's the norm. If something is the norm, it's more likely to be than not to be. Somore than half the time. So most.
Nova, I agree with your correction but I thought breaking it down would be more convincing to doubters.Nova wrote:jlb251 wrote:How so? Typically meansredsox wrote:If it's used in the LSAT to mean "most", that's pretty brutal.the same thing as usually. Usually means it's the norm. If something is the norm, it's more likely to be than not to be. Somore than half the time. So most.
I guess, with all those words, I have a problem with the way they interact with their antonyms. Is something that is not typical necessarily atypical? Or can it be neither typical nor atypical? Usual/unusual? Normal/abnormal? Is it one or the other, or is there a gap in between?jlb251 wrote:How so? Typically means the same thing as usually. Usually means it's the norm. If something is the norm, it's more likely to be than not to be. So more than half the time. So most.redsox wrote:If it's used in the LSAT to mean "most", that's pretty brutal.
^ Yep!Ambitious1 wrote:For LSAT purposes, typically means "more often than not" which translates to most.
Good, assumptions are the enemy.jlb251 wrote:Nova, I agree with your correction but I thought breaking it down would be more convincing to doubters.Nova wrote:jlb251 wrote:How so? Typically meansredsox wrote:If it's used in the LSAT to mean "most", that's pretty brutal.the same thing as usually. Usually means it's the norm. If something is the norm, it's more likely to be than not to be. Somore than half the time. So most.
There is never a "gap" in logical opposites. That's what logical opposite means.redsox wrote:I guess, with all those words, I have a problem with the way they interact with their antonyms. Is something that is not typical necessarily atypical? Or can it be neither typical nor atypical? Usual/unusual? Normal/abnormal? Is it one or the other, or is there a gap in between?jlb251 wrote:How so? Typically means the same thing as usually. Usually means it's the norm. If something is the norm, it's more likely to be than not to be. So more than half the time. So most.redsox wrote:If it's used in the LSAT to mean "most", that's pretty brutal.
I think there can be a "gap" in this case when the probability of something is exactly 50%. To my mind, a coin toss coming up heads, for example, is neither typical nor atypical.malleus discentium wrote:There is never a "gap" in logical opposites. That's what logical opposite means.redsox wrote:I guess, with all those words, I have a problem with the way they interact with their antonyms. Is something that is not typical necessarily atypical? Or can it be neither typical nor atypical? Usual/unusual? Normal/abnormal? Is it one or the other, or is there a gap in between?jlb251 wrote:How so? Typically means the same thing as usually. Usually means it's the norm. If something is the norm, it's more likely to be than not to be. So more than half the time. So most.redsox wrote:If it's used in the LSAT to mean "most", that's pretty brutal.
I guess what I mean is this: Suppose 40% of cars are black, and 60% of cars are a range of other colors. I agree that it would not be accurate to say, "Cars are typically black." But it would also be misleading to say, "Black cars are atypical." Or to say, "Black cars are abnormal." Or, "Black cars are unusual."oxie wrote:I think there can be a "gap" in this case when the probability of something is exactly 50%. To my mind, a coin toss coming up heads, for example, is neither typical nor atypical.malleus discentium wrote:There is never a "gap" in logical opposites. That's what logical opposite means.
I think maybe some of the confusion comes from the fact that in colloquial usage the "neutral band" (for lack of a better term) between typical and atypical tends to be wider than that precise 50% probability. Most people wouldn't describe something as typical unless it happens, say, 75% of the time. But technically speaking, if the probability is 50.1% or higher, you could say that an outcome is "typical" in that it is what happens most of the time.
All of which still boils down to: typical = most
No. "not typical" =/= atypical.redsox wrote:I guess, with all those words, I have a problem with the way they interact with their antonyms. Is something that is not typical necessarily atypical? Or can it be neither typical nor atypical? Usual/unusual? Normal/abnormal? Is it one or the other, or is there a gap in between?jlb251 wrote:How so? Typically means the same thing as usually. Usually means it's the norm. If something is the norm, it's more likely to be than not to be. So more than half the time. So most.redsox wrote:If it's used in the LSAT to mean "most", that's pretty brutal.
Agree 100%. That's kind of what I was getting at. The words are all paired colloquially with antonyms that lend themselves to being seen as a complete set, when "atypical" is really just a subset of "not typical".jordan15 wrote:No. "not typical" =/= atypical.redsox wrote:I guess, with all those words, I have a problem with the way they interact with their antonyms. Is something that is not typical necessarily atypical? Or can it be neither typical nor atypical? Usual/unusual? Normal/abnormal? Is it one or the other, or is there a gap in between?
"Atypical" and "not typical" are indeed logical equivalents.redsox wrote:Agree 100%. That's kind of what I was getting at. The words are all paired colloquially with antonyms that lend themselves to being seen as a complete set, when "atypical" is really just a subset of "not typical".jordan15 wrote:No. "not typical" =/= atypical.redsox wrote:I guess, with all those words, I have a problem with the way they interact with their antonyms. Is something that is not typical necessarily atypical? Or can it be neither typical nor atypical? Usual/unusual? Normal/abnormal? Is it one or the other, or is there a gap in between?
I assume you'd say the same thing about "abnormal" and "unusual"?malleus discentium wrote:"Atypical" and "not typical" are indeed logical equivalents.
The thing you're "getting at" is not a problem unique to "typical." Words can colloquially mean something different from what they mean logically. "Some," for example, logically includes "all" but colloquially does not. Likewise, "atypical" colloquially suggests a degree of rarity that is greater than would be expected of "not typical," but logically they both mean the same thing: exactly 50% or less.
LSAT questions will never be that easy though, which is why it's important to know exactly how the words are related to each other. A question which uses the word "typical" could have choices including words like "always," "sometimes," and "never," so when you get a question asking to strengthen or weaken you won't be so lucky to just be able to look for the answer which uses the word "atypical." I think we're getting at the same thing though.malleus discentium wrote:"Atypical" and "not typical" are indeed logical equivalents.redsox wrote:Agree 100%. That's kind of what I was getting at. The words are all paired colloquially with antonyms that lend themselves to being seen as a complete set, when "atypical" is really just a subset of "not typical".jordan15 wrote:No. "not typical" =/= atypical.redsox wrote:I guess, with all those words, I have a problem with the way they interact with their antonyms. Is something that is not typical necessarily atypical? Or can it be neither typical nor atypical? Usual/unusual? Normal/abnormal? Is it one or the other, or is there a gap in between?
The thing you're "getting at" is not a problem unique to "typical." Words can colloquially mean something different from what they mean logically. "Some," for example, logically includes "all" but colloquially does not. Likewise, "atypical" colloquially suggests a degree of rarity that is greater than would be expected of "not typical," but logically they both mean the same thing: exactly 50% or less.