# "most", "some", "at least one" in LR

#### bummerz

##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2004, 07:13:23 AM »
so can the answer (in this case A) say "most" instead of "some"?
or can the argument say vice-versa (for the sake of argument.. instead of 1-100 work with a 51-99 assumption)

#### Matthew_24_24

##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2004, 07:16:46 AM »
Yes.

Thank you for this example btw.

#### bummerz

##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2004, 07:21:00 AM »
yea, no problem.

It is too bad it's not as definative as I would like as the rest of the answer choices are just wrong.

#### Matthew_24_24

##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2004, 07:25:08 AM »
they will almost never throw a "most" as an answer.  It is too logically confusing in laymen's terms to use.  They like some.

#### Louder Than Bombs

##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2004, 08:03:06 AM »
so can the answer (in this case A) say "most" instead of "some"?
or can the argument say vice-versa (for the sake of argument.. instead of 1-100 work with a 51-99 assumption)

This is again incorrect. The correct answer choice cannot read 'most good communicators are eccentric'...we only know that SOME of these good communicators are eccentric - that is, those eccentric lecturers who are effective teachers.

#### bummerz

##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2004, 08:30:44 AM »
For me my strategy will stick to the layman term as that is what works for me.  To make the other assumption of some=most is illogical (for me) as the argument "but some noneccentric lecturers are very effective teachers" clearly contradicts the "Most lecturers" otherwise there would be no point in differentiating the terms (on the LSAT).

#### Matthew_24_24

##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2004, 08:30:52 AM »
some = most in deductive cases.  This is a perfect example.

Matt

#### Matthew_24_24

##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2004, 08:32:12 AM »
noneccentric teachers (and their characteristics) are a completely separate group

matt

#### bummerz

##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2004, 08:35:53 AM »
the phrase "but some" clearly refutes the word "most".   What i mean is .. if your premise were true then they could have chosen the phrase to "most", but they did not, therefore there is no incentive for me to "change" the layman meaning of the words when the lsat makers themselves are using the layman terms.  Moreover, while the form "most A is B, but some B is C" can be changed to "most A is B, but most B is C", I believe this gives different interpretations (as it should).

#### zxcvbnm

• 196
##### Re: "most", "some", "at least one" in LR
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2004, 12:11:01 PM »
the phrase "but some" clearly refutes the word "most".   What i mean is .. if your premise were true then they could have chosen the phrase to "most", but they did not, therefore there is no incentive for me to "change" the layman meaning of the words when the lsat makers themselves are using the layman terms.  Moreover, while the form "most A is B, but some B is C" can be changed to "most A is B, but most B is C", I believe this gives different interpretations (as it should).

I concur, the two statements lead to very different deductions. From the first, nothing can be properly deduced; from the second, it can be deduced that some A is C. I'm sure Matt will pop in claiming that this isn't a properly deductive argument, but I just don't see the merit in that. Calling our normal use of the word "most" a layman's definition is misleading, because it implies some degree of imprecision. But what's imprecise about it? We all have a very clear, well-defined notion of what "most" is: as dictionary.com so succinctly puts it, "the greatest part or number." When I say that most A's are B, I am saying, very concretely, that there are more A's that are B than A's that are not B. There's nothing fuzzy or ambigous whatsoever about that claim, nor is it vacuous. If I really had to, I could even define "most" in this way using symbolic logic from the ground up. I agree that terms like "few" or "many" are logically vague and have to be equated with "some" in any deductive arguments, but "most" is categorically different; it contains an extra piece of information that can not simply be discarded.