Law School Discussion

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

Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #50 on: August 06, 2004, 06:04:19 AM »
'appauled', are you? :)

nathanielmark

Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #51 on: August 06, 2004, 07:10:01 AM »
honestly, you need to find a woman in your life...  what i sense here is years of pent-up sexual agression.



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



Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #52 on: August 06, 2004, 08:08:21 AM »
The LSAT LR section is not a test of formal, predicate logic. Really, it isn't. It's a test of general human reasoning ability. This isn't tough to see; a good percentage LR questions clearly can't be translated into any formal calculus, and any number of symbols you jot down or deductions you try to make won't help you one bit with these. The fact that formal logic comes in handy with *some* LR problems doesn't mean that *all* LR questions have to be this way.  Formal logic is a significant part of our reasoning abilities, but it's by no means all of it -- this is why we can still out-think a computer in certain domains. It might not have a place for terms like "most" or "few," but that doesn't mean they don't have real significance for us, and that we can't use them in very rational ways. The example of "most women have cancer" and "most women are dumb" leading to the conclusion "some women are dumb and have cancer" is pretty cut and dry true. I think there was an LR question discussed here recently that relied on the everyday interpretation of "nearly all" for the correct answer, the incorrectly addressed/damaged letters one. I could be wrong though.

sluan

  • ****
  • 102
    • View Profile
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #53 on: August 06, 2004, 07:12:58 PM »
Consider the following question.  It is a flawed argument (according to the LSAT).  However, if "most" is logically equivalent to "at least one" then this argument would NOT be flawed.  True?

PrepTest 15 Section 3 Question 22

In Sheldon most bicyclists aged 18 and over have lights on their bicycles, whereas most bicyclists under the age of 18 do not.  It follows that in Sheldon most bicyclists who have lights on their bicycles are at least 18 years old.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of flawed reasoning most similiar to that in the argument above?

jd4me

  • ***
  • 60
  • gpa 3.49/lsat Oct
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #54 on: August 06, 2004, 10:38:54 PM »
Consider the following question.  It is a flawed argument (according to the LSAT).  However, if "most" is logically equivalent to "at least one" then this argument would NOT be flawed.  True?

PrepTest 15 Section 3 Question 22

In Sheldon most bicyclists aged 18 and over have lights on their bicycles, whereas most bicyclists under the age of 18 do not.  It follows that in Sheldon most bicyclists who have lights on their bicycles are at least 18 years old.

Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of flawed reasoning most similiar to that in the argument above?

No, the flaw is the number of 18 and older bicyclist vs. under 18.
There could be 6 of 10 w/lights on their bikes who are 18+
whereas under 18 w/lights could be 49 of 100.
The conclusion would be false, as most bicyclists w/lights are under 18 (49:6).

jd4me

  • ***
  • 60
  • gpa 3.49/lsat Oct
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #55 on: August 06, 2004, 11:00:14 PM »
In TM we were taught that most = more than half.

Ex.  Most women are smart.
     Most women are healthy.
     Thus some women are smart and healthy.

If "most" were treated the same as "some", the conclusion above would not necessarily be true; however, I remember we had an lsat problem that was similar to this example.  Hope this helps the OP.

sluan

  • ****
  • 102
    • View Profile
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #56 on: August 06, 2004, 11:02:36 PM »
Would this be a flawed argument?

In Sheldon SOME bicyclists aged 18 and over have lights on their bicycles, whereas SOME bicyclists under the age of 18 do not.  It follows that in Sheldon SOME bicyclists who have lights on their bicycles are at least 18 years old.

I was trying to continue the previous discussion about the distinction between "most", "some", and "at least one".  For me, this proves that "most" is not logically equivalent to "some" or "at least one". 

Matthew_24_24

Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #57 on: August 07, 2004, 08:41:07 AM »
That is because that particular question is not looking for a deductive answer.  There are two types of arguments used on the LR section: Deductive and Inductive.  That is an inductive use of the word most.  It is not a strict quantifier in the example given from preptest 15, it is asking for an inductive comparison.

This statement would be redundant ***It follows that in Sheldon most bicyclists who have lights on their bicycles are at least 18 years old.*** if it was the deductive use of the word.

However, in a question that is a pure logical statement:

Most women are smart
Most women are healthy
Thus some women are smart and healthy.

This is not correct.  This is a deductive conclusion and does not follow from the premises.

Matt


jd4me

  • ***
  • 60
  • gpa 3.49/lsat Oct
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #58 on: August 07, 2004, 09:00:37 AM »
Matt,

I don't want to upset you or rehash this entire debate.  I'm just letting people know that on a question that we reviewed in my TM class that "most" was treated as "more than half". 

You may be correct that in formal symbolic logic it is considered the same as "some", but that is beside the point.

Please enjoy your weekend.  :)

utaustin

  • ***
  • 94
  • 3.36/164
    • View Profile
Re: "some", "all", "most" etc....what's all that mean in LR?
« Reply #59 on: August 07, 2004, 10:33:02 AM »
thanks for all the comments, i'm lockin this baby up.