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

[Hershel]

Hi, can you explain how "few cowards fail to be fools" is equivalent to "some cowards are fools"? I'm having trouble getting there because I thought "few cowards fail to be fools" meant that "some cowards are not fools." Thanks.

This was my question too, although it was answered here. However I want to be more clear.

So does "a few fail to be" mean "most are" (or at least "some are") because that is what "a few fail to be" means in natural language? Because logically wouldn't it mean "a few are not," which is NOT equivalent to "some are?"

Therefore, sometimes we have to trust our natural instincts in understanding the LSATs language? Sometimes natural language implies something other than what your logical interpretation might mean... I suppose this is what an idiom is.

Could anyone provide a few examples of how natural language would indeed imply something other than what the logical interpretation would be?

[LSAT2018]

Thanks for the question. If few people fail to do something, this is roughly equivalent to saying that most people do it. That is most cowards are fools. Certainly if most cowards are fools, then it's true that some cowards are fools. While the statements are not identical (and the correct answer choice is not a perfect match, just the best available), if the first phrase is true, so is the second.

The quantity does not match up perfectly, as noted, but answer choice C does follow the same flawed structure. That is many As are Bs, most Bs are Cs, so at least one A is a C.
Answer choice C is more like: some As are Bs, some Bs are Cs, so some As are Cs.

Given that no other answer choice matches the basic pattern in the stimulus, answer choice C is the best option you have.
Beth

I was able to identify the correct answer and I understand that the stimulus is flawed because two 'some' statements yield no inferences. That I understand, but I would just like to clarify the information above when you said that 'If few people fail to do something, this is roughly equivalent to saying that most people do it. That is most cowards are fools. Certainly if most cowards are fools, then it's true that some cowards are fools'

I diagrammed it as:
Cowards (Some) → Weaklings
Cowards (Some) → Not Fools

How does this mean most cowards are fools? If few cowards fail to be fools, then isn't it entirely possible that all cowards fail to be fools? So I thought the inference about most/some cowards being fools is invalid. Am I missing something on formal logic here?

[Who Ray]

Hello Hershel,

The phrase "a few fail to be" is equivalent to "a few are not." However, because we are talking about proportions of a group, we can then reason that if "a few are not," then "most are." If this was written as "some cowards fail to be fools," then we could not make that assumption as easily, even though "few" does imply that "some (but not all)".

You should trust your natural instincts after your LSAT skills. Idioms and others language quirks are often vary over dialects, regions, and socio-economic classes, and, fortunately, LSAC has been working to reduce the impact that those factors could have on a test-takers score. Therefore, idioms should not be a problem!

Cheers,
Who Ray

[Who Ray]

Hello LSAT2018!

I touched on this with Hershel, but your question is referencing this more explicitly. "Few" is not equivalent to "some;" however, "few" is equivalent to "some but not all"
Lets say there are 100 cowards. "few" means that 1-49 cowards; while "some," as you point out, means 1-100 cowards. "Some" is a frustratingly nebulous term. When we are making logical assumptions we have to remember that "some" claims are very easy to defend (you just need one), while leaving huge possibilities that we also have to deal with (it could mean all of a group).

I hope that helps!

Who Ray

[Hershel]

Hello LSAT2018!

I touched on this with Hershel, but your question is referencing this more explicitly. "Few" is not equivalent to "some;" however, "few" is equivalent to "some but not all"
Lets say there are 100 cowards. "few" means that 1-49 cowards; while "some," as you point out, means 1-100 cowards. "Some" is a frustratingly nebulous term. When we are making logical assumptions we have to remember that "some" claims are very easy to defend (you just need one), while leaving huge possibilities that we also have to deal with (it could mean all of a group).

I hope that helps!

Who Ray

Thank you!

Now that you are saying that "few" means "most are not" that clarifies things. However, I think this is the first time I am hearing this.

Google search: "what does "few" mean on the LSAT?"

And... the LG Bible says that "few" is same category as "some." See page 307.

So the meaning of "few" depends on context... right?

Examples?

Thank you so much again!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Hershel,
Few is one of those words (like many) that doesn't quite fit into a numerical category. To say it is within the "some" category is true, because numerically "some" is "1-100" which is the catch all. So yes, few is at least one, but whether it would go all the way up to 100% is a bit more questionable (and unlikely). To simplify the issue, it makes sense to say that contextually few is less than half, while also recognizing that without creating a new label (for something that is likely 1-49), it still fits best in the "some" category.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[Hershel]

Thank you!

[freddythepup]

Hi, for this question I thought I had diagrammed it correctly. But I didn't get the right answer.

I had diagrammed:

Weaklings -->most Cowards
Cowards some NOT Fools
Conclusion: Weakling some Fool

Is this right?

How do you diagram "all too many"? I assumed this to mean "most". Thanks.

[Brook Miscoski]

Freddy, there are some complicated wordings in that stimulus, and it prevented your conditions from being correctly expressed. Let's consider what each of the following phrases means:

"All too many"
"few...fail"

"All too many" is subjective. It means "more than I would like." We can't infer "most" from it, but rather "at least one," which is a "some" concept.

"few...fail" is fairly loose, but it means that "some are."

So,

Weakling Coward
Cowards Fool

flawed conclusion is Weakling Fool

The flaw is that you can't chain "some" statements together. This flaw would still exist if you had interpreted one or more of the statements as a "most."

(A) chains absolute and non-absolute relationships. Wrong.
(B) is about something not being likely, rather than belief that at least one exists. Wrong.
(C) chains "some" statements. Winner. Alternatively, chains non-absolute relationships. Winner.
(D) contains reasoning about motives, not how groups share characteristics. Wrong.
(E) chains absolute and non-absolute relationships. Wrong.

[silent7706]

Hi,

Can you eliminate (A) and (E) as answer choices simply because they have no flaw in their reasoning pattern?

Thanks in advance.