#22 - Counselor: To be kind to someone, one must want that

[jdavidwik]

Be careful jdavid. Many means more than one, and while it's nebulous the exact numbers, you can't necessarily reverse it.

For example, many Sumatran Rhinos have horns. Many animals with horns are not Sumatran Rhinos because there are only a handful left in the world. We can't reverse that term many because it would be applying to different sized populations.

I would say that you could reverse "many" into "some." You know that there's at least one animal with horns that is a Sumatran Rhino based on the above, so it would be fair to say you know that some horned animals are Sumatran Rhinos.

Hope that helps!

Hi Rachael,

Back and forth with LSAT here but I hope to follow through for this Oct or Nov's administration.

I like categorizing flaws, and maybe my thinking in attempting the above, i.e. to see a blanket rule of "many" statements always being reversible, is akin to the comparison type flaw you referred to in tonight's webinar on Common Flaws? This was re. a percent of market question. Some flaws don't seem to fit neatly into the Flawed Reasoning in LSAT Logical Reasoning Questions categories. Needing to know the size of the overall market to know how the percent of market (truly) impacts overall sales, in that situation, was a kind of comparison type flaw, but not sure where it would fit into PS's categories on the aforementioned page, although I have come across these comparison type flaws in LR practice PrepTests. In your Sumatran rhino/animals with horns example, the diagram can be drawn (reversing the animals with horns into Sumatran rhinos only as some), but this abstract example would probably not be helpful in solving a problem, but it does illustrate the problem of comparing large and small populations along a parameter that could not be termed "many" in both directions...which I suppose is why you offered up this example. I see it as similar to your markets problem tonight, just wondering if there is another category under which they could both be grouped, or is comparison type flaw as exact as one could get here?

[Robert Carroll]

jdavid,

I would subsume the questionable reversibility of "many" under Numbers and Percentages flaws. We already know that "most" cannot be reversed. We could really do the same for any percent:

Only 10% of the applicants to this program are native to Europe

does not mean the same as

Only 10% of the natives of Europe are applicants to this program.

The word "many" is pretty vague, but could in some contexts mean something like "a substantial number of". What is a substantial number depends on the total. Let's say the program I referred to in my examples has 60 applicants. Google tells me Europe's population is 746.4 million. If 6 applicants to the program are natives of Europe, I think I can truly say:

Many of the applicants to this program are natives of Europe.

but probably not say

Many natives of Europe are applicants to this program

because 6 is a tiiiiiny slice of Europe's population.

That said, if I'm being as practical as possible, I don't think that distinction is likely ever to matter on the LSAT.

Robert Carroll

[jdavidwik]

Hello Robert,
Thank you for expanding upon the "many" categorization issue. I think your phrasing improved upon mine, i.e. I had said that the rhino/markedly different-sized populations' example might be a bit too abstract to ever apply in an LR question in this context of "many". You stated that if you were being as practical as possible such a distinction is not likely to ever matter on the LSAT. What I did want to draw attention to is that this issue can be applied to PT85 #22. The conditional chain pointed to by Kelsey W. notes "some" in the third column. Quantity terms on the LSAT are an issue in their varied definitions from those we are familiar with in everyday life. For example, "many" and "some" can be interchanged, cannot they be, on the LSAT? This was why it was pointed out to me that "many" and "some" statements are both reversible. If all the answer choices in PT85 #22 began with "Many", wouldn't the conditional chain noted by Kelsey, James F., etc. still apply, as "many" can be defined as "some"? This was the original point and it was steered down a less practically applicable path, it seems, although the differing populations' example does prove pertinent as per being subsumed under Numbers and Percentages flaws. However, as noted, this latter distinction is unlikely to arise on the LSAT. As per some recent LR examples I have encountered, I have returned to seeing the practicality of considering the meanings of these two quantity terms, and this question provides a case in point.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi jdavid,

I think this blog post might help you sort through these terms a bit more. Some and many don't mean the exact same thing, though there is an overlap. As Robert pointed out above, the meaning of many often depends on the context, where as some always has the same meaning.

Hope that helps!

[Neil J]

Hi there,

Revisiting this traumatic question and wanted to get some clarification

1. I don't really see a way to solve this without using the conditional nature of some of the statements; aka, I have to break this down almost mathematically to understand. Is that okay? I want to ensure I am understanding stimuli as best as possible, and to me, that was the only way I could for this one.

2. The second sentence, "Yet, even two people who dislike each other may nevertheless treat each other with respect," is not conditional in nature, correct? I diagrammed and couldn't link it, eventually realize that Fully Content in Each Other's Presence -----> Like Each Other, which can be connected to Like Each Other ----> Kind to Each Other -----> Want to Prosper.

God bless y'all for helping on this forum

[Robert Carroll]

Neil,

I went back to the thread and saw that pretty much every post from a PowerScore staff member diagrammed, but even more explicitly, Adam's post says it all (viewtopic.php?p=87837#p87837):

For complex arguments with a lot of conditional statements like this one, cornflakes, it might be possible to do it without diagramming, but in my experience it's faster, easier, and more accurate to do the diagram.

The "may" is not conditional, as is pointed out in several posts from PowerScore instructors earlier in this thread.

Robert Carroll

[Jude.m.stone@gmail.com]

Hi, I got the same conditional statements that are listed in the explanation above, but I'm still not seeing how those show that A, D, and E can be true. Can someone please show me how to use the conditional chains to create Some Trains to eliminate those answer choices? Here's what I got:

1) Fully content in each other's presence Dislike each other Kind to each other Want each other to prosper
2) Want each other to prosper Kind to each other Dislike each other Fully content in each other's presence
3) Dislike each other Treat each other with respect

From those conditional relationships, I can see how B cannot be true: if someone is fully content in the other's presence, then they must want the other to prosper.

Conversely, I can see how C can be true: Treat each other with respect Dislike each other Fully content in each other's presence

But I can't figure out how to build the appropriate formal logic chains to show that A, D, and E could each be true. Thanks in advance for your help!

[Adam Tyson]

That's because conditional chains aren't particularly useful for showing what CAN be true, Jude.m.stone@gmail.com . They only show what MUST be true and what CANNOT be true! Anything that does not conflict with the conditional logic can be true. You won't be able to use a conditional relationship to prove that something other than what the logic shows to be required. For example:

If I eat soup for lunch, I will have chicken for dinner.

Could it be true that I had a sandwich for lunch? Absolutely! Does the conditional rule here prove that I can have a sandwich? Not in the slightest! It just does nothing to prevent it from happening. Could I have soup for dinner? Again, yes, because there's nothing preventing me from doing so.

When faced with a conditional chain coupled with a Cannot Be True question, the correct answer will involve a Sufficient Condition occurring and a Necessary Condition not occurring. That is the only thing that cannot be true, and anything else could be true!

[Liz0501]

Hi!

Thank you for the discussion and explanation on this question, it has helped a lot! However, I do have a question about one of the conditionals diagrammed.

I'm not 100% sure why the second sentence is diagrammed with a "some" conditional (i.e. "Dislike--some--respect" ). Is it because the sentence says "even two people who dislike each other" and thus implies that it includes two people who don't dislike each other, therefore needing a "some" conditional?

Please let me know if I need to clarify anything in my question. I tried not to make it so convoluted, but I wasn't sure how else to phrase it.

Thank you!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Liz0501!

Good question!

You can disregard the "even" in this statement. You can also disregard the specification that there be two people.

This may be parsed as there exist people who dislike each other such that these people treat each other with respect.

It has nothing really to do with the fact that there are two of them.

Instead, we simply suggest that such people exist, that is, people who dislike each other yet still respect one another.

This is how we arrive at dislike respect.

I hope this helps!