#21 - A society in which there are many crimes, such as

[Adam Tyson]

"Many" does not mean the same as "some", amowuya - see my explanation above about the ambiguous nature of many compared to the quantifiable nature of some. That said, "many" does indicate "some", because many, while somewhat vague, certainly means more than zero!

The problem with answer choice E is that we cannot prove many laws from many crimes. Perhaps there is just one law - "honor thy mother and thy father". There could be many crimes flowing from that one law, couldn't there? Some people talk back to their mom - boom, that's a crime! Others forget to give Dad a card on Father's Day - arrest those villains! Still others disobey their parents instructions, or speak poorly about their parents to their peers, or bring home bad grades - all kinds of crimes, and all based on just one law!

Here's another way to determine that E cannot be the credited response, even if it seems to make sense to you at first glance: the Uniqueness PrincipleTM. That principle tells us that only one answer can be the best answer. Like the Highlander, there can be only one. So, if one answer, if it's true, forces another answer to also be true, then the answer doing the forcing cannot be the right answer. If answer E is true - that a society with many crimes has many laws - then mustn't it also be true that a society with some crimes has some laws? Doesn't answer E force answer D to also be true? Since E is doing the forcing, and D can be true even if E is not, then E cannot be the best answer. That principle comes up now and again on this test, and when you have two very similar answers like these it can help you pick the right answer without totally understanding why.

See if that makes sense, and let us know if you need further elaboration. Also, make sure you get your Dad a card on Father's Day.

[lathlee]

The biggest problem I have with this question even though i got right is the following

according to the lsat bible sets of 2016, some and many are synonymous that both them represent values of 1-100%.
I chose some because this wording would suit the answer questioning better but i do not understand why answer choice E is wrong according to Logic bible's teachings.

[Dave Killoran]

according to the lsat bible sets of 2016, some and many are synonymous that both them represent values of 1-100%.
I chose some because this wording would suit the answer questioning better but i do not understand why answer choice E is wrong according to Logic bible's teachings.

Hi Lathlee,

Actually, that's not what the LRB says about those two terms—they are not identical Some and many can overlap, but many has an extra dimension to its meaning. Fortunately, I talk about that in detail here: LSAT Quantity Terminology: Some, Few, Several, and Many, and that article should help clear things up!

Thanks!

[lathlee]

Hi. Dave,

Thank you so much helping your students as always and if none of your students here do not appreciate you, I appreciate you like a heavenly blessing. You have no idea that posting helped me to clarify some of the confusion I had in my brain.

Now the next point, as you know there are MOST (51-100% representation) equivalent indicators which are 7 of them in pg 404 of 2016 LSAT logic bible. as in of almost all, usually, typically, more than half. they are all the same representation of percentages right unlike Some equivalent indicators. as Most equivalent terms all indicate 51-1000 % value. right?

[Jon Denning]

Well the specific indicator used has to be taken into consideration, as they don't all allow for 100% to be included.

For instance, "most" and "more than half" can include "all," but phrases like "almost all" or "nearly all" obviously don't allow for "all" (and would also imply something more than just 51%, which could be what "most" or "more than half" are telling you).

So you have to pay attention to the language itself...but then that's LSAT 101

[lathlee]

Thx Jon

[elewis10]

is this considered biconditional? Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there elewis10, thanks for asking! A truly biconditional statement is one in which two terms are each sufficient for the other, usually indicated by a phrase like "if and only if" or "if but only if". Conditional statements are usually absolute claims - the sufficient condition ALWAYS brings about the necessary condition. There's some wiggle room on that part, though, as we can analyze as conditional a claim that if one thing happens, another thing becomes more likely to occur.

Language like "some" and "most" are not technically conditional, although we often diagram them and analyze them in very similar ways. Instead, they fall into the category of "formal logic", and are less absolute than their conditional cousins. "All of my pets are dogs" is conditional, but "some of my pets are dogs" is not.

There is an element of a two-way street in these formal logic claims, similar to a biconditional relationship, in that the "some" aspect runs both ways. If some of my pets are dogs, that must also mean that some dogs are my pets. If most of my pets are dogs, I can also claim that at least some dogs are my pets, but it would be a flaw to claim that most dogs are my pets (and also a huge surprise to my wife, my neighbors, and my landlord!) We can ride that "some train" both ways, but the "most" train only goes in one direction.

If you happen to have our Logical Reasoning Bible, check out our chapter on Formal Logic there. If you are enrolled in one of our courses, visit the Online Student Center for a module on the topic. You won't regret it!

[Shamon]

Hey everyone:

So, I know why got this wrong, but my problem, I realized, is whenever I'm diagramming a conditional statement such as this one I put a slash through it for the not in the statement. I had this:


( I will use underline for slashes)

L--C As you see here I know the sufficient and the necessary condition, but I interpret the not for a
negation. When do I not negate, albeit the statement has not in front of the sufficient or
necessary conditions?

Question: how do I correctly interpret a statement such as this one--"a society has no law has no crime." I thought that "no law" part of the statement meant that I should write it as a negation, a slash drawn through the no laws.

Look forward to your clarification!

[Adam Tyson]

Looks to me like you got it right, Shannon! A society that has no laws has no crimes is properly diagrammed as:

Law Crime

Well done!