#17 - Lawyer: A body of circumstantial evidence is like a

[PeterC123]

Hi,

So let me get this straight, a few is very close to several but even smaller, and both, depending on context, is less than most and usually small numbers. Many is large numbers, could be more or less than most.

Is there similar questions where the quantifiers are not "some/most/all" but rather a few vs several and that the distinctions between the two are what solves the problem?

A very helpful read anyhow, thanks!

[Steven Palmer]

Hi Peter,

I'd say you're correct in your description. Off the top of my head, no questions pop up wherein the crucial difference is few v. many. I would focus more on what the quantity is supposed to signal, much like was done in this problem (where breaking a few strands of rope was irrelevant because every strand was equal).

Thanks!
Steven

[swong1267]

Why is D wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there swong! The reason D does not describe the flaw made by the lawyer is because he DID indicate that ropes and bodies of circumstantial evidence have some similarities. Look at his first two sentences - that lays out that there are at least some similarities. Now you don't have to accept the analogy, and you may think it's hogwash, but that's about your opinion of the quality of his evidence. We aren't interested so much in the quality of the evidence when looking at answer D, but at whether any evidence is offered. Since some evidence is offered (adding pieces strengthens the whole in both cases), D doesn't describe the problem.

I hope that adds a few strands of understanding to your body of LSAT knowledge.

[UBCstudent1234]

So I am a bit confused with regards to the some, many, few and several, point that was made on this question.

I thought that all of them should be considered as meaning at least one? In the past whenever I have seen many, I have interpreted many as meaning at least one?

Is this an all-encompassing rule?

[Dave Killoran]

So I am a bit confused with regards to the some, many, few and several, point that was made on this question.

I thought that all of them should be considered as meaning at least one? In the past whenever I have seen many, I have interpreted many as meaning at least one?

Is this an all-encompassing rule?

They all signify at least one, but they do go further than that in some cases, as I explain here: LSAT Quantity Terminology: Some, Few, Several, and Many.

Many, as explained in that article, means the following:

• “Many” is defined as “a large number.” But, what does “a large number” actually mean? In the case of a nine-person party, “many” might mean five, six, seven, or eight. However, in the case of 20,000 concertgoers, many would probably mean over 7,000 or 8,000—the exact number is indistinct. So, again, the meaning of this term is somewhat dependent on overall group size.

So yes, it's at least one, but it's also more than that

[BMM2020]

I'm not entirely satisfied with relying on the colloquial distinction between "a few" and "many" for this one question (and not others) - is there any other way to choose between answer A and C? If not, is there any way to approach similar answer choices in the future? For example, if two answers are virtually identical, but one uses the phrase "nearly all" and the other uses "most," while the stimulus itself employs "a majority," is it best to simply go with our gut understanding of these values? (I would assume most and a majority are more closely related, in this case)

Thanks.

[Ryan Twomey]

Hey BMM2020,

The LSAT is not the same as how we use quantifier terms coloquially. Coloquially some means at least two, whereas on the LSAT some specifically means at least one.

A flaw question is a description question, meaning the answer choice has to accurately describe the flaw in the stimulus. C does not accurately describe the flaw, because of the switch in the term from some and few in the stimulus to many in the answer choice.

Nearly all and most are also not the same, so in that example you would eliminate that answer choice as well. Usually the LSAT will use the phrase "not all." If I have 100 friends and I say not all of my friends are going to the party, that means some of my friends will not go to the party. That could be be 0-99. If I were to say that most of my friends will go to the party, that would be 51-100 of my friends. If I were to say nearly all of my friends will go to the party, that would probably be like 80-99, but that term is used a lot less on the LSAT.

Quantifiers are very important on the test, and it seems pedantic, but lawyers are very pedantic when it comes to languange, so this is probably why the LSAT chooses to do this.

I hope this helps, and I wish you good luck in your studies.

Best,
Ryan