A curiosity occurred today after reviewing Formal Logic R.

[lathlee]

I know SA (Some first All is second) train makes inference as in of

let's say in Must be true context

1st case:

EX:
Some NCAA players possess gifted athletically abilities. All gifted athletically ability beings become professional athletics.

Some NCAA players become professional athletics.

Now 2nd Case (All is First Some is Second) ( I know this one doesn't make an inference :

ALL NCAA players possess gifted athletically abilities. Some gifted athletically ability beings become professional athletics. ( this line one doesn't make inference but this is the curiosity occurred to me today: )

BUT, shouldn't make it sense some NCAA players become professional athletics. considering Every single NCAA players athletically gifted abilities, therefore, since some of gifted athletically ability beings will become professional athletics who also possess the characteristic of NCAA become professional athletics? as in of at least 1% will become professional athletics? therefore some train is valid?

is this why the 2nd case why this doesn't make an inference: Even though all of NCAA players possess gifted athletically abilities. Let's say for the sake of conversation: there are 10 000 gifted athletically abilities exist in the world of this conversation. Only 1000 of them are NCAA players. even if some of gifted athletically abilities become pro let's say 5 000, we have no way knowing in those 5 000 that becomes professional athletics, are consist of any NCAA players ( the unique characteristic only 1000 out 10 000 possess). therefore it doesn't make the inference

[Dave Killoran]

is this why the 2nd case why this doesn't make an inference: Even though all of NCAA players possess gifted athletically abilities. Let's say for the sake of conversation: there are 10 000 gifted athletically abilities exist in the world of this conversation. Only 1000 of them are NCAA players. even if some of gifted athletically abilities become pro let's say 5 000, we have no way knowing in those 5 000 that becomes professional athletics, are consist of any NCAA players ( the unique characteristic only 1000 out 10 000 possess). therefore it doesn't make the inference

Hi Lathlee,

I quoted the part of your post that explains exactly why an inference can't be drawn. Great job there!

[AthenaDalton]

Hi lathlee,

If I'm understanding you correctly, the first set of relationships you came up with is as follows:

NCAA players gifted athletes
gifted athletes become professionals

Therefore it's accurate to conclude that:

NCAA players become professionals

Now to your second set of relationships:

NCAA players gifted athletes
gifted athletes professionals

The reason we can't conclude that some NCAA players are professionals is that the world of "gifted athletes" who go on to become professionals might not include any NCAA players. Consider this example: there are 1,000 gifted athletes in the world, split equally between basketball, baseball, football, and tennis. Only "some" of these gifted athletes go on to become professionals -- maybe just 100. We don't know which gifted athletes will get to go pro. It could be that all 100 athletes who go pro are tennis players. Or maybe 50 college football players go pro, and 50 college tennis players go pro, and zero NCAA players make it to the professional league.

Of course, this isn't how sports in real life work, but in the world of the LSAT, we never know what "some" includes. It might not include the particular sub-group of gifted athletes (NCAA players), so we can't make assumptions about whether NCAA players will become professionals.

Best of luck studying!

[lathlee]

Most train works ; Now I see why there cannot be Most trains.

using prior examples:
Most of NCAA players possess gifted athletically abilities. and all possess gifted athletically abilities become professional ahtletics.

Let's say for the sake of conversation: there are 51/100 NCAA players possess gifted athletically abilities *which fall in most range of 51-100%). even if all of gifted athletically ability individuals (in this context and all questions i witnessed so far, we don't have any knowledge or how much people are ALL gifted athletically ability individuals WILL BE ALL we know is minium mumber would be at least 51 to infinite), if the number of gifted athletically abilities are 102 it is then we have 51/ 102 (50%) which in this case we have then Not

then in this inference we have

some of NCAA players become professional ahtletics. Not Most.

But according to LSAT logical reasoning bible set, it is supposed to by MOST of NCAA players become professional athletics.

as in Most train can be established if we only know the maximum number has to be set which would NOT go beyond 1000. but the test takers are not given those kinds of information ever. we absolutely have no idea the number of gifted athletically abilities in real LSAT problems.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Lathlee,

You made an error when you changed the numbers in the example from 100 to 102, namely that 51/102 does NOT meet the standard for "most:"

if the number of gifted athletically abilities are 102 it is then we have 51/ 102 (50%) which in this case we have then Not

In this case, if the number is 102, you'd have to have 52 to qualify as "most." 51, which is exactly half, is not the same as most.

As given in the example, the following is true:

• Most of NCAA players possess gifted athletically abilities. and all possess gifted athletically abilities become professional ahtletics.
  
  
  Premises: NCAA Players Gifted Athletically Professional Athletes
  
  Conclusion: NCAA Players :most:Professional Athletes

The one nice thing about the LRB (and all our materials) is that they have been vetted by the public repeatedly, so there's almost no chance you'd find an error on something like this. So, if you think you've found a mistake, stop first and consider if you might have changed the terms somehow or otherwise misinterpreted what is there.

Thanks!

[lathlee]

Hi. Prior example, I think I explained my concept poorly. This is what I am saying anyway (I am going to incorporate prior example's value system here) :

My Dilemma beings I can see and understand how the most train can become Some train ( A B C) (which is fine cuz we are taught how this can be)

Anyways in this instance, we know that A C or A C .

This is where problem began in my brain: I See why A C would be more prevalent and actually more times correct answer inferences than A C (in LRB drill and logic bible drill sets, we are TAUGHT that in this instance, a C is the correct answer and the rationale for that is since Most is the weakest link. )

consider the following scenario in question stem:

as in A (Ex: people of 51/100, now we don't really know how much people exist but i used 51 for a reason ) B ( people X value , all we know is its not lower than 51) C ( people of X value)

As in of since I don't know what B's number value representations which can be anything except lower than 51)

but in this case if B's EXACT value is not given, how the heaven would I know it would between a C or A C
As in if in question maker's mind, B number representation values turned out to be 102+ (this is why I used that number of 102 in prior example)

Given that only natural numbers are acceptable in this case, Most Can be the correct answer 50 times only (51-100) whereas some will be the correct answers 50+ times

Let's the answer canadiate choices will be (In must be true question)

a) a C
B) A C

they are both true but I will go with B) A C since A C will be more times of correct answer right? As I stated:

" Most Can be the correct answer 50 times only (51-100) whereas some will be the correct answers 50+ times "

cuz Value of B can be anything except lower than 51.

But the problem arises in my brain is that AS I STATED ABOVE in LRB drill and Powerscore's logic bible lesson drill sets, we are TAUGHT that in this instance, to think that a C is the correct answer and the rationale for that is since Most is the weakest link.

Do you see my dilemma and the part I am having difficulty understanding now ? or Do I need to explain myself better? BTW, I can see if any of the staff say I am thinking way too much, I am guilty of that.

[Dave Killoran]

My Dilemma beings I can see and understand how the most train can become Some train ( A B C) (which is fine cuz we are taught how this can be)

Anyways in this instance, we know that A C or A C .

Correct. The additive inference is A C, which then contains the inherent inference that A C. Very good!

This is where problem began in my brain: I See why A C would be more prevalent and actually more times correct answer inferences

That's NOT correct. In the instances where this construction is used, A C is usually the inference they play with, and less frequently its A C.

consider the following scenario in question stem:

as in A (Ex: people of 51/100, now we don't really know how much people exist but i used 51 for a reason ) B ( people X value , all we know is its not lower than 51) C ( people of X value)

As in of since I don't know what B's number value representations which can be anything except lower than 51)

but in this case if B's EXACT value is not given, how the heaven would I know it would between a C or A C
As in if in question maker's mind, B number representation values turned out to be 102+ (this is why I used that number of 102 in prior example)

You are confusing yourself with this analysis. Although the quantity of B is not known exactly, we do know the entire range of possibilities. If A is 51, then B must be between 51 and 101, inclusive (again, it cannot be 102 because we already know that A B is a factual statement). Consequently, in every possible scenario, the inference A C is a fact. What you are doing is confusing that set of possibilities with the fact that in each case A C is automatically know, and then also looking at the scenario from Cs side, where at best all we know is C A (we do NOT know C A, although that is possible).

But the problem arises in my brain is that AS I STATED ABOVE in LRB drill and Powerscore's logic bible lesson drill sets, we are TAUGHT that in this instance, to think that a C is the correct answer and the rationale for that is since Most is the weakest link.

Do you see my dilemma and the part I am having difficulty understanding now ? or Do I need to explain myself better? BTW, I can see if any of the staff say I am thinking way too much, I am guilty of that.

I want to be clear here so there's no confusion for anyone reading this: The LRB teaches this properly. You're getting confused as to how these numbers work, and indeed on the way the LSAT tests these concepts. The inference A C is actually easier for most people to see and understand, which actually makes it less likely to be tested. Your analysis above ignores this fact, among other problems.

Lathlee, the bigger issue is that we have gotten well off-track in what you are studying, and yes, you are overthinking things You and I have obviously talked many times in the past months, and I feel like I have a very good sense of where you are coming from and how you hope to perform. The discussion here is about a minor point of a concept that is tested infrequently. I know you want to understand every detail, but you've focused so much on conditional reasoning and formal logic that I'm worried it has become a distraction, and you've also twisted things up so that you are creating points of analysis that don't reflect what the test does or even what is numerically accurate. I'd much rather see you focus on how Must Be True questions work or how Assumptions play different roles in the argument than on arcane phrasing (as in other posts) or almost algebraic math relationships (as in this post). You'd get more mileage out of focusing on broader question and reasoning mechanics, and at this point I feel like you should consider working with a tutor, who could answer these questions faster and also keep you more on track and focused on where you need to be heading! Does that make sense?

Thanks!

[lathlee]

Great advice. Thank you, sir. Will incorporate your advice into my studying. Thank you for setting the record straight as well.

I also want to set the record straight. and Dave should know: I never doubted the problems in Powerscore's analysis of LSAT. I knew when I was asking this question, the problem occurred in my mind due to I was so anxious to possess absolute crystal clear understanding in every confusing part of LRB to me. As I confessed to DAVE; I suffer from the Extreme level of Anxiety Disorder. Again, I state that it was my excessive worrying for making sure I have No flaws in my skills for LSAT possible cause this thread to occur in first place. (Dave's analysis was correct.)

Now I look at how much Dave had to work extra more for a bothering student like me after I review this thread.

Dave, Again, Thank you so much for answering and trying to help me in the first place even though you absolutely do not have to. As I stated and Thanked prior many time but I would like to do it again: If anybody doesn't appreciate how much you are willing to do for your students, I Do. I really am thankful and appreciative of you. In fact, I am so grateful for Dave so much that when I am financially better off, I would like to send a bottle of Nice ice wine to Powerscore corporation just out of my own expenses cuz I live in Ontario Canada. I thought it would be a nice gesture and way of showing my gratitude.