The question is a Most Strongly Supported question.
I quickly eliminated C, D, E.
While I don't think B is particularly strong, I kinda think it's stronger than A.
Answer choice A says that establishing committees in all medium and large workplaces would result in a reduction of occupational injures. How do we know that is the case? The stimulus provides no basis for concluding that, as we don't know whether or not the "few companies" being referred to aren't the medium/large workplaces already. If they are, then establishing committees in all medium and large workplaces wouldn't result in a reduction in occupational injuries.
I tried to argue that the "few" might hint at the fact that not all of medium and large sized workplaces currently have committees, but the few was referring to companies, and no further information is really provided about the quantity/or that there is necessarily an exclusion of at least 1 medium/large workplace. Also, "few" is a pretty vague term and doesn't give us anything concrete (unless there's a technical meaning of few I'm unaware of).
If I were constructing my perfect answer, it certainly wouldn't be B, but I think in some respects, it's more supported. B says that a committee that is required by law is more effective at reducing occupational injuries than a voluntarily established one.
With the absence of the first sentence (in the stimulus), I could see how this answer would be a disaster, but I think the fact that it's included muddies the water a bit (and makes for why A isn't the best of the worst answers). Answer choice B says that a committee that is required by law is more effective at reducing occupational injuries than a voluntary one. We know that BOTH the United States and Sweden & Canada have been successful in reducing occupational injuries. However, the United States still ranks "FAR" behind both countries when it comes to workplace safety. The actual KNOWN difference between the United States and Canada & Sweden is the fact that one is voluntary and one is required. An answer doesn't have to be guaranteed, but we are asked to see which is the most likely to be supported. Based on what we know, I think concluding that the committees being required by law makes up for at least some (even if it's minuscule) of this difference in ranking. Especially with the inclusion of "far behind" AND the fact that that is the only known difference between the United States and Canada & Sweden.
Obviously, there are assumptions made. I don't think it's a stretch to think that the rankings have something to do with the "effectiveness" of workplace safety. As in, it could be that the rankings being talked about are about which workplace safety place looks the coolest (or anything). However, I think that's a stretch. I also realize "effectiveness" isn't clearly defined, but I think (assume) that the ranking have something to do with this effectiveness and being higher in the ranking means being more effective in (at least) some respect.
Again, not the perfect answer, I understand, but that has been my rational for this question.
Any thoughts?
I also know it's not a big deal. It's one question, I know, but it was bugging me.
Disputed Answer. PT19, S2, Q24 Forum
-
Jeffort
- Posts: 1888
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm
Re: Disputed Answer. PT19, S2, Q24
One of the keys behind why (A) is supported lies in the meaning of "only in the few" to properly understand what the sentence as a whole means/establishes in the context of the stimulus.
"In the US, such committees are found only in the few companies that have voluntarily established them." This establishes that only a very small proportion of all companies in the USA have implemented the described safety committee and also that the overwhelming majority of all companies in the USA (whether big, medium, small, gigantic, two man operation, whatever size or type of company) DO NOT have such committees operating that we're told have proven to be very successful at causing a reduction in the amount of work place injuries. This means that almost all USA companies lack the cause that is producing safer work environments with less injuries in the other two countries where the supervision committees are required by law and every medium to large workplace has one.
By referring to 'companies', "the few" is talking about the entire group (very large scope) of all companies that exist in the USA and establishes that only a small proportion of the total number of members in the group (companies) have voluntarily established a safety committee, and that the rest (the majority) have not.
The first sentence of the stimulus establishes that the USA ranks worse in workplace safety, which simply means there is a higher rate of workplace injuries in the USA than in the other countries. The context of the entire stimulus and topic of discussion makes it clear that the ranking isn't based on some arbitrary thing like coolest looking break room or something. 'workplace safety' isn't ambiguous, it's clearly talking about how safe the workplace is for the workers against risk of getting injured on the job.
The second sentence of the stimulus establishes that the safety oversight committees cause there to be less workplace injuries.
The third sentence establishes that the overwhelming majority of USA companies lack the cause (safety committee) that is proven to reduce amount of workplace injuries. Combine that with the fact from the first sentence about USA companies workplaces being less safe (meaning higher rate of/more workplace injuries in USA workplaces than in the other higher ranked countries) than those of the countries where the cause is implemented and (A) is very strongly supported. The committees cause better safety/less injuries. Most USA companies don't have safety committees and USA workplaces are less safe than those in other countries with the committees. (A) basically says If implement the cause (safety committees) in all USA workplaces that the other guys are successfully using to keep things safe and then the USA will get the same results, less workplace injuries.
Hope this clears things up.
The word 'few' is a limiting quantifier.
"In the US, such committees are found only in the few companies that have voluntarily established them." This establishes that only a very small proportion of all companies in the USA have implemented the described safety committee and also that the overwhelming majority of all companies in the USA (whether big, medium, small, gigantic, two man operation, whatever size or type of company) DO NOT have such committees operating that we're told have proven to be very successful at causing a reduction in the amount of work place injuries. This means that almost all USA companies lack the cause that is producing safer work environments with less injuries in the other two countries where the supervision committees are required by law and every medium to large workplace has one.
By referring to 'companies', "the few" is talking about the entire group (very large scope) of all companies that exist in the USA and establishes that only a small proportion of the total number of members in the group (companies) have voluntarily established a safety committee, and that the rest (the majority) have not.
The first sentence of the stimulus establishes that the USA ranks worse in workplace safety, which simply means there is a higher rate of workplace injuries in the USA than in the other countries. The context of the entire stimulus and topic of discussion makes it clear that the ranking isn't based on some arbitrary thing like coolest looking break room or something. 'workplace safety' isn't ambiguous, it's clearly talking about how safe the workplace is for the workers against risk of getting injured on the job.
The second sentence of the stimulus establishes that the safety oversight committees cause there to be less workplace injuries.
The third sentence establishes that the overwhelming majority of USA companies lack the cause (safety committee) that is proven to reduce amount of workplace injuries. Combine that with the fact from the first sentence about USA companies workplaces being less safe (meaning higher rate of/more workplace injuries in USA workplaces than in the other higher ranked countries) than those of the countries where the cause is implemented and (A) is very strongly supported. The committees cause better safety/less injuries. Most USA companies don't have safety committees and USA workplaces are less safe than those in other countries with the committees. (A) basically says If implement the cause (safety committees) in all USA workplaces that the other guys are successfully using to keep things safe and then the USA will get the same results, less workplace injuries.
Hope this clears things up.
The word 'few' is a limiting quantifier.
few - definition
adjective, few·er, few·est.
1.
not many but more than one: Few artists live luxuriously.
noun
2.
( used with a plural verb ) a small number or amount: Send me a few.
3.
the few, a special, limited number; the minority: That music appeals to the few.
-
T14orTradeSchool
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:16 am
Re: Disputed Answer. PT19, S2, Q24
Thanks for the response, I really do appreciate it! But I don't see how what you've said establishes the issues I've highlighted with answer choice A or made a case why it's better than B based on my analysis.
I completely agree with you that "only a few companies" establishes that only a very small proportion of all companies in United States have these committees. The problem with this is that this is the full, absolute! extent of our knowledge.
As you've pointed out, "few" is a limiting quantifier. "More than one" and/or "the minority"
So, for example, if we have 500,000 companies in the US, few can mean anywhere from 1 to 249,999 (based on the definition you've provided). We do NOT know whether this "few," whatever the number may be, encompasses the medium/large sized workplaces already and there isn't anything telling us this either.
I can very much accept why A) can be said to be right. As in, I can conform to how the makers of the LSAT thought it out (I understand how they've thought it out), I just don't think it's that correct.
I completely agree with you that "only a few companies" establishes that only a very small proportion of all companies in United States have these committees. The problem with this is that this is the full, absolute! extent of our knowledge.
As you've pointed out, "few" is a limiting quantifier. "More than one" and/or "the minority"
So, for example, if we have 500,000 companies in the US, few can mean anywhere from 1 to 249,999 (based on the definition you've provided). We do NOT know whether this "few," whatever the number may be, encompasses the medium/large sized workplaces already and there isn't anything telling us this either.
(A) says if they implement the cause in "medium and large workplaces" not "all" workplaces. I think those are two very different things. If it was "all" workplaces, then A would be much, much stronger. That isn't what it says and it doesn't establish that those are the only companies under consideration.(A) basically says If implement the cause (safety committees) in all USA workplaces that the other guys are successfully using to keep things safe and then the USA will get the same results, less workplace
I can very much accept why A) can be said to be right. As in, I can conform to how the makers of the LSAT thought it out (I understand how they've thought it out), I just don't think it's that correct.
-
T14orTradeSchool
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:16 am
Re: Disputed Answer. PT19, S2, Q24
Few is limiting, but still relatively wide open in terms of possibilities. Maybe if there was something stronger in front of "few" that showed it to be extremely limiting , then (A) would be more supported.
-
Jeffort
- Posts: 1888
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm
Re: Disputed Answer. PT19, S2, Q24
sorry about the typo at the end where I accidentally omitted 'medium sized and large sized' after 'all', it was an oversight, but the logic remains the same.
'few' IS a very limiting quantifier and not 'wide open' as you describe it. It does not allow for the hypothetical numbers you presented where the total number you are treating as 'few' is only 2 out of 500,000 away from becoming the majority.
few means a very small amount/very small proportion: not many but more than one
Being defined as more than one but less than many is very limited because it means the space between 'more than one' and 'many', capping what it could include/be referring to at both ends within a narrow low end numerical range. 'Many' is the wide open wildly uncertain quantifier word, not 'few'.
Not many means less than many. When it comes to limiting quantifiers at the bottom end with 'few' and 'several', the top-end cut-off points are a bit vague with no exact defined numerical ending point other than 'less than many', with 'many' also being numerically vague, but for informal reasoning purposes 'few' = 'small amount/small proportion of the group' and that's good enough for the logical validity of this inductive reasoning question type. The vagueness is partly in the words by themselves, but more precise meanings are established via the context within which the words are used, meaning that they are words whos more precise meaning is sometimes defined/refined/established via the context/how it's specifically being used and about what.
The only way it could be possible that 'the few' US companies that voluntarily have safety committees includes all or even most of the medium and large size workplaces that exist in the USA is if you assume there are only a very small amount of medium and large size workplace companies in the country and that the overwhelming majority of companies in the USA are small businesses with small size workplaces (small size workplace excludes most if not all industrial manufacturing businesses and most everything that is in medium/large office buildings that big cities are filled with, almost all retail chain companies people use everyday like grocery stores, WalMart, CostCo, Malls, etc.) That possibility/assumption contradicts common sense known reality and therefore isn't acceptable for LSAT analysis purposes or for challenging the logical validity of the question.
Notice that the beginning of every LR section includes this statement in the instructions:
"You should not make assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage."
Go ahead and poke around on more online dictionaries looking up 'few' 'many' 'several' and whatever else to see the common meaning in all the differently phrased definitions. 'few' means a very small amount/very small proportion of something.
In the context of this LR question the 'few' sentence establishes that the overwhelming majority of USA companies do not have a safety committee, which necessarily includes at least some medium and large sized workplaces companies. Even if establishing safety committees in all medium and large size USA companies only adds as few as one or two more medium or large sized workforces (ones that weren't already voluntarily doing it), it would still lead to a reduction in workplace injuries. Notice (A) doesn't say it would result in a LARGE reduction, it just says it would result in a reduction. Even just a few less workplace injuries at one single workplace that would otherwise have happened if a safety committee hadn't been established is a reduction.
Even though this AC is pretty strongly supported IMO, if you still think it's only weakly supported, notice that the question stem for this one is slightly different than usual.
It's not a most strongly supported question stem/type!
It only asks 'Which one of the following is supported...', lowering the burden of proof for the CR compared to MSS stems.
There is absolutely zero support for what (B) asserts. The stimulus only tells us that the committees have been very successful in all three countries. There is zero information/discussion/evidence about different rates of success in the three countries/if injuries were reduced by different amounts/rates in any of the three countries compared to each other (voluntary committees in the USA, mandated by law in the other two), so it's simply out of scope of the evidence we have.
'few' IS a very limiting quantifier and not 'wide open' as you describe it. It does not allow for the hypothetical numbers you presented where the total number you are treating as 'few' is only 2 out of 500,000 away from becoming the majority.
few means a very small amount/very small proportion: not many but more than one
Being defined as more than one but less than many is very limited because it means the space between 'more than one' and 'many', capping what it could include/be referring to at both ends within a narrow low end numerical range. 'Many' is the wide open wildly uncertain quantifier word, not 'few'.
Not many means less than many. When it comes to limiting quantifiers at the bottom end with 'few' and 'several', the top-end cut-off points are a bit vague with no exact defined numerical ending point other than 'less than many', with 'many' also being numerically vague, but for informal reasoning purposes 'few' = 'small amount/small proportion of the group' and that's good enough for the logical validity of this inductive reasoning question type. The vagueness is partly in the words by themselves, but more precise meanings are established via the context within which the words are used, meaning that they are words whos more precise meaning is sometimes defined/refined/established via the context/how it's specifically being used and about what.
The only way it could be possible that 'the few' US companies that voluntarily have safety committees includes all or even most of the medium and large size workplaces that exist in the USA is if you assume there are only a very small amount of medium and large size workplace companies in the country and that the overwhelming majority of companies in the USA are small businesses with small size workplaces (small size workplace excludes most if not all industrial manufacturing businesses and most everything that is in medium/large office buildings that big cities are filled with, almost all retail chain companies people use everyday like grocery stores, WalMart, CostCo, Malls, etc.) That possibility/assumption contradicts common sense known reality and therefore isn't acceptable for LSAT analysis purposes or for challenging the logical validity of the question.
Notice that the beginning of every LR section includes this statement in the instructions:
"You should not make assumptions that are by commonsense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage."
Go ahead and poke around on more online dictionaries looking up 'few' 'many' 'several' and whatever else to see the common meaning in all the differently phrased definitions. 'few' means a very small amount/very small proportion of something.
In the context of this LR question the 'few' sentence establishes that the overwhelming majority of USA companies do not have a safety committee, which necessarily includes at least some medium and large sized workplaces companies. Even if establishing safety committees in all medium and large size USA companies only adds as few as one or two more medium or large sized workforces (ones that weren't already voluntarily doing it), it would still lead to a reduction in workplace injuries. Notice (A) doesn't say it would result in a LARGE reduction, it just says it would result in a reduction. Even just a few less workplace injuries at one single workplace that would otherwise have happened if a safety committee hadn't been established is a reduction.
Even though this AC is pretty strongly supported IMO, if you still think it's only weakly supported, notice that the question stem for this one is slightly different than usual.
It's not a most strongly supported question stem/type!
It only asks 'Which one of the following is supported...', lowering the burden of proof for the CR compared to MSS stems.
There is absolutely zero support for what (B) asserts. The stimulus only tells us that the committees have been very successful in all three countries. There is zero information/discussion/evidence about different rates of success in the three countries/if injuries were reduced by different amounts/rates in any of the three countries compared to each other (voluntary committees in the USA, mandated by law in the other two), so it's simply out of scope of the evidence we have.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
T14orTradeSchool
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:16 am
Re: Disputed Answer. PT19, S2, Q24
“Few” isn't wide open, but it is relatively wide open. As in, the number of possibilities of few can range widely (depending on the number we’re talking about).
But just for reference, where can I safely draw the “few” line, then, if I can’t take it to its logical extreme? So let’s say we are dealing with 100 items, 49% can’t be considered few? Can 45% be?
Basically, what exactly is the “space between ‘more than one’ and ‘many’?”
For a word that doesn't tell us that much about a quantity, I think something more like “extremely few” or something would’ve made (A) strongly supported.
I don’t know the exact percentages, but there are a lot of small businesses in the US (Mom and Pop shops, Timmy’s Tires around the corner, etc.). If I understood “few” to mean a 40ish% (is this justified?) then I don’t think my thought process is crazy. Few could then encompass medium and large sized firms and the remaining could be small (or extra-large or “gigantic, two man operation, whatever size or type of company.”) Right?
But just for reference, where can I safely draw the “few” line, then, if I can’t take it to its logical extreme? So let’s say we are dealing with 100 items, 49% can’t be considered few? Can 45% be?
Basically, what exactly is the “space between ‘more than one’ and ‘many’?”
For a word that doesn't tell us that much about a quantity, I think something more like “extremely few” or something would’ve made (A) strongly supported.
I don’t know the exact percentages, but there are a lot of small businesses in the US (Mom and Pop shops, Timmy’s Tires around the corner, etc.). If I understood “few” to mean a 40ish% (is this justified?) then I don’t think my thought process is crazy. Few could then encompass medium and large sized firms and the remaining could be small (or extra-large or “gigantic, two man operation, whatever size or type of company.”) Right?
I have to disagree that it necessarily includes at least some medium and large workplaces. I think the issue is that it doesn't necessarily include this and moreover, then wouldn't the conclusion have to be true? As in, it would be a Must Be True question type. (Not that something that Must be True isn't supported).In the context of this LR question the 'few' sentence establishes that the overwhelming majority of USA companies do not have a safety committee, which necessarily includes at least some medium and large sized workplaces companies.
I didn't notice this, but that's a great catch! I guess it makes me feel a bit better since "strongly" isn't there lol.It only asks 'Which one of the following is supported...', lowering the burden of proof for the CR compared to MSS stems.
-
Nulli Secundus
- Posts: 3175
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:19 am
Re: Disputed Answer. PT19, S2, Q24
That's a boatload of words over the word "few".
-
Jeffort
- Posts: 1888
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm
Re: Disputed Answer. PT19, S2, Q24
In certain ways 'few' is relatively wide open, while also being constrained at the same time. That's part of what makes it and other non-absolute quantifiers confusing for LSAT purposes.
How much numerically 'few' can validly be referring to is relative depending on the subject matter, context and specific grammatical way the word is used. That's part of why there are no absolute/precise defined cut-off numbers. The somewhat vague quantifiers like some, few, several, many and most are meant to be relative and somewhat flexible/inexact for use in discussions when exact or near exact numerical precision isn't important for the discussion/topic.
An important distinction a lot of the confusion comes from with 'few' is the difference in meaning of saying 'few' vs saying 'a few' or 'the few'. The phrase 'a few' is more open ended on the upward end of how much it could include than using the word 'few' without the indefinite article word 'a' introducing it or than using 'the few' with the definite article word 'the' introducing it.
'Few', when used without a preceding 'a' basically means a very small amount and proportion, whereas 'a few' indicates some but not a large number (with large being relative and somewhat subjective depending on the subject matter). The difference is subtle, but important. 'The few' operates the same as 'few' by itself since it also operates by referring to a definite noun.
The indefinite article use 'a few' by itself doesn't indicate/establish anything about proportion within a group (unless additional context info/wording does) while 'few [insert noun]' by itself does.
Two examples:
Q: How did your party go?
A: Good, a few friends showed up. (means some but not a large number)
vs.
A: Shitty, few friends showed up. (means small number and small proportion of his total number of friends)
The first answer 'a few friends showed up' in this situation is consistent with it also being true that most or even all of the persons friends showed up if the guy only has a small amount of friends in total. Imagine the poor guy has 3 friends total and they all came to the party. His answer is factually and logically accurate while it's also true that ALL his friends showed up. This example shows why you cannot put a universal % or actual number cutoff on what 'a few' means since it partly depends on context and topic.
An example for how context matters and why you can't assign actual cutoff numbers to few, several or many.
Q: How was nighttime sightseeing with your telescope tonight, see many stars?
A: There were few stars out visible tonight.
A: There were a few stars out visible tonight.
Either of these statements could mean there were a few THOUSAND or even millions stars out visible instead of billions like on a good cloudless night out in the desert away from city lights, so you can't say things like 'few' means no more than 4 or whatever number.
'A few' means a small amount in actual quantity of whatever it's referring to, leaving how much a 'small amount' could equal something that is relative to the subject matter/thing being discussed and somewhat subjective.
Another example:
Q: How are your finances going right now son?
A: Meh, I'm down to a few mill right now.
'few' can also be modified by other words to totally change it's meaning, like saying "I have quite a few $$s in my pocket, let's party!"
Context and the introducing word ('a' or no 'a'!) is key for figuring out what 'few' actually establishes in each different situation.
Don't stress or put too much more thought into this. You're not going to see any LSAT questions where exact numbers or more specificity with those quantifiers is necessary to answer any questions correctly.
All you need to know is that 'a few' just means at least a couple/small amount but not a large amount/many (many being relative to the topic), and that 'few' without 'a' and 'the few' establishes a very small amount and very small proportion of whatever thing it's referring to is and that the overwhelming majority IS NOT.
The few LR questions in LSAT history where 'few' is central to the CR have been based on recognizing that they used 'few' or 'the few' to refer to a definite noun (rather than 'a few' which only refers to indefinite noun) and that that established that very few are and that the overwhelming majority of whatever are NOT. In them the CRs are built upon needing to recognize the inference that most are not from the 'few are/did/have/etc.' statement.
Hope this is helpful. It's a confusing topic, but for LSAT purposes you just need to know and simply apply the basics outlined above and everything will be fine. LSAC isn't going to put out a question that depends on knowing exactly how many or what % are the cut-offs for few, several or many, it's not a math test.
How much numerically 'few' can validly be referring to is relative depending on the subject matter, context and specific grammatical way the word is used. That's part of why there are no absolute/precise defined cut-off numbers. The somewhat vague quantifiers like some, few, several, many and most are meant to be relative and somewhat flexible/inexact for use in discussions when exact or near exact numerical precision isn't important for the discussion/topic.
An important distinction a lot of the confusion comes from with 'few' is the difference in meaning of saying 'few' vs saying 'a few' or 'the few'. The phrase 'a few' is more open ended on the upward end of how much it could include than using the word 'few' without the indefinite article word 'a' introducing it or than using 'the few' with the definite article word 'the' introducing it.
'Few', when used without a preceding 'a' basically means a very small amount and proportion, whereas 'a few' indicates some but not a large number (with large being relative and somewhat subjective depending on the subject matter). The difference is subtle, but important. 'The few' operates the same as 'few' by itself since it also operates by referring to a definite noun.
The indefinite article use 'a few' by itself doesn't indicate/establish anything about proportion within a group (unless additional context info/wording does) while 'few [insert noun]' by itself does.
Two examples:
Q: How did your party go?
A: Good, a few friends showed up. (means some but not a large number)
vs.
A: Shitty, few friends showed up. (means small number and small proportion of his total number of friends)
The first answer 'a few friends showed up' in this situation is consistent with it also being true that most or even all of the persons friends showed up if the guy only has a small amount of friends in total. Imagine the poor guy has 3 friends total and they all came to the party. His answer is factually and logically accurate while it's also true that ALL his friends showed up. This example shows why you cannot put a universal % or actual number cutoff on what 'a few' means since it partly depends on context and topic.
An example for how context matters and why you can't assign actual cutoff numbers to few, several or many.
Q: How was nighttime sightseeing with your telescope tonight, see many stars?
A: There were few stars out visible tonight.
A: There were a few stars out visible tonight.
Either of these statements could mean there were a few THOUSAND or even millions stars out visible instead of billions like on a good cloudless night out in the desert away from city lights, so you can't say things like 'few' means no more than 4 or whatever number.
'A few' means a small amount in actual quantity of whatever it's referring to, leaving how much a 'small amount' could equal something that is relative to the subject matter/thing being discussed and somewhat subjective.
Another example:
Q: How are your finances going right now son?
A: Meh, I'm down to a few mill right now.
'few' can also be modified by other words to totally change it's meaning, like saying "I have quite a few $$s in my pocket, let's party!"
Context and the introducing word ('a' or no 'a'!) is key for figuring out what 'few' actually establishes in each different situation.
Don't stress or put too much more thought into this. You're not going to see any LSAT questions where exact numbers or more specificity with those quantifiers is necessary to answer any questions correctly.
All you need to know is that 'a few' just means at least a couple/small amount but not a large amount/many (many being relative to the topic), and that 'few' without 'a' and 'the few' establishes a very small amount and very small proportion of whatever thing it's referring to is and that the overwhelming majority IS NOT.
The few LR questions in LSAT history where 'few' is central to the CR have been based on recognizing that they used 'few' or 'the few' to refer to a definite noun (rather than 'a few' which only refers to indefinite noun) and that that established that very few are and that the overwhelming majority of whatever are NOT. In them the CRs are built upon needing to recognize the inference that most are not from the 'few are/did/have/etc.' statement.
Hope this is helpful. It's a confusing topic, but for LSAT purposes you just need to know and simply apply the basics outlined above and everything will be fine. LSAC isn't going to put out a question that depends on knowing exactly how many or what % are the cut-offs for few, several or many, it's not a math test.
EDIT: Sorry for adding more, saw your post after writing this! lolNulli Secundus wrote:That's a boatload of words over the word "few".
-
T14orTradeSchool
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:16 am
Re: Disputed Answer. PT19, S2, Q24
Jeffort,
Thanks a lot of taking the time to respond in detail like that. I really do appreciate it and it has helped. Even though I still have a few ...
reservations about this question, I completely understand how the LSAT is testing it. Thanks again!
Thanks a lot of taking the time to respond in detail like that. I really do appreciate it and it has helped. Even though I still have a few ...
reservations about this question, I completely understand how the LSAT is testing it. Thanks again!
