Law School Discussion

"some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?

nathanielmark

Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2004, 01:25:04 PM »
**bows head in acknowledgement of intellectual inferiority**


I doubt it will convince everyone.

I've went over detailed lines of evidence for biological evolution with Young Earth Creationists.  They simply refer to "flawed carbon dating" and are done with it.  Methods of knowledge acquisition like logic and science simply don't click for certain people. (hint hint)

Matt

GentleTim

  • ****
  • 875
  • 3.45/175
    • View Profile
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #41 on: August 04, 2004, 01:26:49 PM »
I couldn't find a better example than this -- although there may possibly be a more illustrative LR question somewhere.  This example can be used to support Matthew's point about "most".  However, there's a bit of room for contention.  What do you think?

PrepTest 30 Section 2 Question 16

Zoos have served both as educational resources and as entertainment. Unfortunately, removing animals from their natural habitats to stock the earliest zoos reduced certain species' populations, endangering their survial.  Today most zoo animals are obtained from captive breeding programs, and many zoos now maintain breeding stocks fro continued propagation of various species.  This makes possible efforts to reestablish endangered species in the wild.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the information above?

(A) Zoos have played an essential role in educating the public about endangered species.
(B) Some specimens of endangered species are born and bred in zoos.
(C) No zoos exploit wild animals or endanger the survival of species.
(D) Nearly all of the animals in zoos today were born in captivity.
(E) The main purpose of zoos has shifted from entertainment to education.

This really isn't a great example because none of the answers focuses on the size of one set vs. the size of another.  In this case, the most qualifier doesn't add anything.

sluan

  • ****
  • 102
    • View Profile
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2004, 01:35:11 PM »
I know it's not a great example.  I posted it because I couldn't find a better one.  I think a more productive way to go about resolving this disagreement is to find actual LR examples instead of mudslinging.

GentleTim

  • ****
  • 875
  • 3.45/175
    • View Profile
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2004, 01:39:19 PM »
That's definitely true.  But not returning fire after my belief in logic, science and evoloution has been impugned is pretty hard.

Looking at the limited practice material I have, I haven't found an example that uses most at all.

mukhia

Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2004, 01:40:58 PM »

This really isn't a great example because none of the answers focuses on the size of one set vs. the size of another.  In this case, the most qualifier doesn't add anything.



The man does not lie.

swifty

  • ****
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • LSAT Sucks
    • Email
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #45 on: August 05, 2004, 02:08:43 AM »
KISS!

I go to used car lot:  "I want a brown car."
Salesperson: "we only have 10 cars, and most are brown as you can clearly see"

I look around, and see 6 brown cars.  Salesperson is correct.
If I saw only 1 brown car, salesperson is incorrect.

Why does it have to be any harder than that?

P.S.  Your bias on used car salespersons plays no role.  You are there and you see
how many cars are brown, and how many total cars are there. 




Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #46 on: August 05, 2004, 02:40:55 AM »
You did hit a nerve.  You hit my "I really dislike stupidity" nerve.  It tends to go off when I come near churches and republican conventions and union headquarters.  I had avoided having that nerve tweaked on these forums for about a month now. 

Congratulations for introducing it again to me.

Matt

What a f-in tool... :D

Matthew_24_24

Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #47 on: August 05, 2004, 01:18:41 PM »
Swifty: Why? Because it is.  Words like most, a few, and many have different meanings in logic than they do in everyday conversation.

If someone told you "a few of my friends are going to the cabin" would you really think that its possible all are?  Or "many of the kids went to school today" meaning only one did? I doubt it.

Apply the same reasoning for the word most.

Matt

swifty

  • ****
  • 1357
    • View Profile
    • LSAT Sucks
    • Email
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #48 on: August 05, 2004, 09:07:40 PM »
Swifty: Why? Because it is.  Words like most, a few, and many have different meanings in logic than they do in everyday conversation.

If someone told you "a few of my friends are going to the cabin" would you really think that its possible all are?  Or "many of the kids went to school today" meaning only one did? I doubt it.

Apply the same reasoning for the word most.

Matt

No sir.  You are using some sort of formal logic you learned in school, that  "most" of us meaning more than 50% have not learned.  We don't need to know any special outside knowledge other than what is given us.  We all know this.  You are applyng outside knowledge on your part, I guess to show how well you know formal logic, but that is moot. "Most" should be used as the definition in the dictionary if you don't know what most means. (say you are learning English).  This is quite funny because GreenEggs first response was a link to a dictionary.  That probably is the best answer I would give, but he can be a well, the way he is.  But, he is right. 

Matthew_24_24

Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #49 on: August 06, 2004, 02:25:24 AM »
Fine Swifty...you know what? Bomb your LSAT.  I don't care. But at least learn how to argue your point. There is a reason why they have objective testing for law school.  To keep whiners with disabilities out.

The more I read on this board the more appauled I am of my low 170, high 160 score.  What a bunch of f-ing idiots. No offense.  I'm sure most of you can't help it. Not a SINGLE person here has challenged me without resorting to ad hominem f-ing attacks or referencing bad online dictionaries to get SCIENTIFIC definitions.  Oh wait, i forgot about the dogmatic, undefined attacks.  Sorry for those i f-ing excluded.

I'd love to tag any of you in a formal debate.  Lol, the bloodshed. I am still going to help those who ask for it...but for anyone bitching in this thread, be lucky you are american.  You wouldn't make it into a Canadian law school.

Matt 



Matt