#21 - All too many weaklings are also cowards, and few

[Robert Carroll]

Jimmy,

"Few X fail to be Y" is a compound statement, which is why it's causing you so much trouble here. Compare other statements:

"Some A are B"

This is extremely straightforward. It's saying that there are things that are both A and B. There may be one, or a ton. That's all we know.

"Most C are D"

This is also super straightforward. A majority of things that are C are also D. That may end up being just over half of C that are D. Or all of them. Or anything in between. Again, that's all we know.

So...

"Few X fail to be Y"

Well...some X must fail to be Y, otherwise this statement wouldn't make any sense. The author is saying "Look, it's only a few, but there are those few X that fail to be Y". So, "Some X are not Y" is entailed by that statement. But..."some" is normally compatible with "all". In other words, if some A are B, it might be that ALL A are B. That's not possible with our X, Y situation. Sure, some X fail to be Y...but not many. That's what "few" means - there are a few, but only a few, exceptions. So...we can say that the few X that fail to be Y are exceptions. To say that a certain subgroup is an exception to a general rule means that, in most cases, the general rule applies. So..."most X are Y" is also entailed by the statement.

Which aspect of "few X fail to be Y" is relevant in the given situation depends on the rest of the context. Both aspects exist, though, so you should be aware of both.

Robert Carroll

[jimmy1115]

Dear Robert,

This is extremely helpful

thank you

[Let'sMasterLsat]

Hello,

When I was trying to figure out the flaw of this argument, besides the flaw that the author assumes an overlap (which is the main flaw and required for guiding us to the correct answer), I was thinking of another possible flaw in the argument, which I was wondering if it's actually a flaw or not. From my perspective, the author assumes only two options, either "failing to be fool", or "fool" basically, either "fool" or "not fool". Isn't that the "False Dichotomy Flaw"? Maybe a few cowards fail to be fools, but the rest are not necessarily fools (maybe the rest are somewhere between not fool and fool).
-Even though I understand that it is not a relevant point in order to find the correct answer but I was really curious to know.

Thanks in advance for addressing this question.

[Let'sMasterLsat]

Hello,

When I was trying to figure out the flaw of this argument, besides the flaw that the author assumes an overlap , I was thinking of another possible flaw in the argument ( I was wondering if it's actually a flaw or not). From my perspective, the author assumes only two options, either "failing to be fool", or "fool" basically, either "fool" or "not fool". Isn't that the "False Dichotomy Flaw"? Maybe a few cowards fail to be fools, but the rest are not necessarily fools (maybe the rest are somewhere between not fool and fool).

-Even though I understand that it is not a relevant point in order to find the correct answer but I was really curious to know.

Thanks in advance for addressing this question.

[Robert Carroll]

Let'sMasterLsat,

"Failing to be a fool" and "being a fool" are logical opposites, so there's no False Dichotomy there. "X fails to be Y" is just a long-winded (so, typical LSAT!) way of predicating the negation of Y.

Robert Carroll