#2 - For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors

[gmsanch3]

Hello, I didnt select E because of the word ‘many.’ My thought process was that many = 50% or more... since we dont know how many have gone on to college in order to prepare for careers requiring degrees, I thought we therefore couldn’t say it was “many” that did. I chose D even though I didnt like it either because we also dont know the numbers, we’re only given percentages, but the word “many” in E stood out more negatively in my mind.
I also thought that negating “Many” wouldn’t have destroyed the argument because, for example: prior to the program there were only 10% that went on to college and now there is an additional 15%, it still wouldn’t have reached “many” (which in my mind is 50% or more). I thought the argument would still work without this assumption. Please help me understand what I am doing wrong.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi gmsanch3!

Careful here, "many" does NOT equal "most." The word "most" means more than 50% . "Many" on the LSAT actually doesn't really have a precise meaning. It is basically equivalent to "some" which just means "at least one." Generally, you might think of "many" as being more than one or maybe even more than a "few," but practically speaking, the term does not have a specific numerical equivalent. "Many" really just means more than "none." And the negation of "many" would be basically "none."

Check out these blog posts for further discussion of quantity terminology on the LSAT:
https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/a-qual ... -the-lsat/
https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid-15 ... -and-many/

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[gmsanch3]

Thank you. I’m beginning to understand how “many” works on the LSAT.

[mab9178]

Hi,

As to the negation of "many," trickier than "most" (at least to me), Kelsey writes negating in this context would be "none," which would destroy the argument for sure thereby proving its necessity, i.e. an assumption on which the argument depends per the question. However, the argument does not have to be completely destroyed, weakening it substantially would would do the job; and negating "many" as "not many," meaning "few," does substantially weaken the argument. I think what I am saying her is consistent Adam Tyson's post unless my read of it is inaccurate. Is it?

One last question, observational one, I have never come across an LR question asking for a strengthen with necessary assumption answer-choice that has two answers both of which weaken the argument but to variant degrees. In other words, when this type of question always features five answer-choice from which only one weakens the argument, and it usually does so significantly. Am I correct?
I ask because although there are no guarantees, knowing this according to the published LSATs thus far, renders the debate on what the most accurate negation of the word "many" this particular stimulus unimportant for future questions as, both negations -- "none" or "few" -- would weaken the argument 100% destruction or mostly (over 50%); and all we have to look for under the gun of the clock is an answer that weakens the logic! Is this risky?

Thank you
Mazen (mab9178)

[Adam Tyson]

While you could negate "many" with "none," you could also do it with "few" or "not many". "None" is more extreme than we need to be, but it wouldn't cause us any trouble.

Once in a while, two answers will both seem to do the job, but in those cases one will always be much, much better than the other. It will never be a close call between them. The question will ask you to pick the one that does the most to strengthen, or the most to weaken, and you have to pick the more powerful of the two. Usually, though, only one answer does what you need, and the others do the opposite or else nothing at all.

[mab9178]

Thank you Adam

Mazen