Is is possible LSAC is wrong???

[belushi018]

I could swear the credited response for the following question (from PrepTest 2) is wrong.
"There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues.  Most of them hold political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist.  Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talen and political insight are rarely found together."

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

I did not find any answer particularly appealing, but I do feel like the credited response was clearly wrong.  The answer is

"Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists."

The stimulus says, essentially, that most artists have less insightful political views than well-educated non-artists.  However, most does not preclude the possibility of all (since the concept of all contains the concept of most), and for this reason, I don't see how we can infer that some artists are no less politically insightful than non artists.  This is possible, but not necessarily the case.

Does anyone have any input on this?

[belushi018]

Really??  57 views and nobody has any thoughts on this?

[visualverificationfailure]

I had a student that called them up and demanded they check an answer. They were not amused. Sometimes a bad answer looks better the next day.

[contrarian]

I could swear the credited response for the following question (from PrepTest 2) is wrong.
"There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues.  Most of them hold political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist.  Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talen and political insight are rarely found together."

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

I did not find any answer particularly appealing, but I do feel like the credited response was clearly wrong.  The answer is

"Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists."

The stimulus says, essentially, that most artists have less insightful political views than well-educated non-artists.  However, most does not preclude the possibility of all (since the concept of all contains the concept of most), and for this reason, I don't see how we can infer that some artists are no less politically insightful than non artists.  This is possible, but not necessarily the case.

Does anyone have any input on this?

I do believe that for purposes of the LSAT, most does not imply the possibility of all.  It means the greatest of multiple amounts, therefore there has to be some that are not in the most category.

[belushi018]

Contrarian,
  I would have agreed with you.  However, the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible (one of the most definitive prep books out there) clearly disagrees.  Page 315 breaks down what they call "The Logic Ladder."  This is what they say:
"if a statement is made that 'all waiters like wine,' then you automatically know that 'most waiters like wine,' and 'some waiters like wine.'  The same is true for most relationships, but to a more limited extent.  If 'most waiters like wine,' then you automatically know that 'some waiters like wine.'  But because most is below all on the Logic Ladder, you do not know with certainty that 'all waiters like wine' (it is possibly true, but not certain)"
All of that was a quote from powerscore.  The very last part--"it is possibly true, but not certain--is what I'm talking about.  If we say "Most artists know less about politics than not artists," according to Powerscore, it's still possible that "all artists know less about politics than non artists," and, if that's the case, we can't infer that some artists know as much as non artists about politics. 
So, it seems to me that either Powerscore is wrong, or the test is wrong.  Since this is from Preptest 2, I'm tempted to believe the latter is the case.  Thoughts?

I could swear the credited response for the following question (from PrepTest 2) is wrong.
"There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues.  Most of them hold political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist.  Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talen and political insight are rarely found together."

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

I did not find any answer particularly appealing, but I do feel like the credited response was clearly wrong.  The answer is

"Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists."

The stimulus says, essentially, that most artists have less insightful political views than well-educated non-artists.  However, most does not preclude the possibility of all (since the concept of all contains the concept of most), and for this reason, I don't see how we can infer that some artists are no less politically insightful than non artists.  This is possible, but not necessarily the case.

Does anyone have any input on this?

I do believe that for purposes of the LSAT, most does not imply the possibility of all.  It means the greatest of multiple amounts, therefore there has to be some that are not in the most category.

fff

[MauveAvenger]

"There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues.  Most of them hold political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist.  Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talen and political insight are rarely found together."


"Most" could mean anything from 51%-99%. It means the majority are less insightful. So, SOME (anywhere from 1%-49%) are NOT less insightful. Which means they are as insightful as reasonably well educated people. It's hard to differentiate between everyday, colloquial vocabulary and what a word literally means, but you have to on the LSAT. Both words are very very vague, so you have to take their direct meaning. While we may think "some" means a lot, in actually it could mean any number, however small. The answer that LSAC has is technically (and literally) correct.

[eyeoftheligrr]

My understanding of "most," as used on the LSAT, is 51-100%.  (Colloquially I understand most to mean 51-99%)  My 51-100% interpretation is based on Powerscore's "logic ladder."  As you point out, Belushi and Penn, the stimulus in question is incompatible with this interpretation of "most." 

So... has anyone contacted Powerscore about this?  Maybe they can get a response from LSAC.  Perhaps what LSAC means by "most" has shifted over time.. ?

[contrarian]

Note the last line, artistic talent and political insight are rarely found together.  Therefore some people with artistic talent have political insight.  Therefore, it would indicate that most is in fact not all.

Contrarian,
  I would have agreed with you.  However, the Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible (one of the most definitive prep books out there) clearly disagrees.  Page 315 breaks down what they call "The Logic Ladder."  This is what they say:
"if a statement is made that 'all waiters like wine,' then you automatically know that 'most waiters like wine,' and 'some waiters like wine.'  The same is true for most relationships, but to a more limited extent.  If 'most waiters like wine,' then you automatically know that 'some waiters like wine.'  But because most is below all on the Logic Ladder, you do not know with certainty that 'all waiters like wine' (it is possibly true, but not certain)"
All of that was a quote from powerscore.  The very last part--"it is possibly true, but not certain--is what I'm talking about.  If we say "Most artists know less about politics than not artists," according to Powerscore, it's still possible that "all artists know less about politics than non artists," and, if that's the case, we can't infer that some artists know as much as non artists about politics. 
So, it seems to me that either Powerscore is wrong, or the test is wrong.  Since this is from Preptest 2, I'm tempted to believe the latter is the case.  Thoughts?

[r6_philly]

I am a science/math major and I like to visualize things. lets plot a simple graph based on the premise given. Lets us A to represent the artist population and W for Well-educated non-artist persons. Then suppose the degree of insightfulness is on a increasing scale from the left to the right.

So most artist are less insightful -> some of the A's (5) are NOT LESS THAN W's -> it overlaps the lower fence of the W's
Then the rest of the W's are greater than all the A's.
Now look at the graph: the 5 A's are NOT LESS THAN at least 5 of the W's -> "Some A's are NOT LESS THAN some W's.

This graph fits all the conditions spelled out. The LSAC answer is correct no matter what the  numerical definition of "Most" or some is. The overlap can be 1% or 49%. Remember they inferred that at least some are NO LESS THAN, they didnt say "MORE THAN". You cannot prove that the overlap A's are LESS THAN, so they must be NOT LESS THAN.

Artists: AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WENonAs:                      WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 

[gzl]

I could swear the credited response for the following question (from PrepTest 2) is wrong.
"There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues.  Most of them hold political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist.  Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talen and political insight are rarely found together."

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

I did not find any answer particularly appealing, but I do feel like the credited response was clearly wrong.  The answer is

"Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists."

The stimulus says, essentially, that most artists have less insightful political views than well-educated non-artists.  However, most does not preclude the possibility of all (since the concept of all contains the concept of most), and for this reason, I don't see how we can infer that some artists are no less politically insightful than non artists.  This is possible, but not necessarily the case.

Does anyone have any input on this?

I'd say you are right, if all you're looking at is "most."  The last line, I think, is intended to limit the scope of "most" to "most but not all," with "rarely" meaning the set has *some* members.