Q21 - A society in which

[lisahollchang]

This question makes absolutely no sense to me! I ended up choosing answer C because I saw answers A and B as logical equivalents, as well as D and E. I have no idea why answer D is correct especially since it's logically equivalent to E. Wondering if anybody can help me out with this one. Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

The argument is a difficult one to understand completely -- the basic gist is that a society full of crimes cannot be called lawless, because if a society didn't have laws, it wouldn't have crime.

You are right that (A) and (B) are logical equivalents, but not right about (D) and (E) -- some and many statements are not reverses or negations of one another, and cannot be considered as such.

Let's compare the answers all against the idea

"If a society has no laws, it has no crimes."

(A) doesn't have to be true
(B) doesn't have to be true
(C) doesn't have to be true
(D) does have to be true -- if there are some crimes, there had to be some laws. It helps (D) that "some" is so vague.
(E) does not have to be true -- there could be many crimes but just one law.

Tough Q -- hope that helps!

[lisahollchang]

Thanks! It's helpful to consider how vague "some" can be in this context. I guess a person could argue that a society with "some crimes" also could only have one law. Does one law count as "some"? Nevertheless, answer D is the most desirable answer choice.

[gotomedschool]

Does one law count as "some"? Nevertheless, answer D is the most desirable answer choice.

The definition of some is at least one. Some covers a broad range of possibilities from a minimum of one to a max of all.

[Daniella.owusu]

I thought some and many were equivalent. Because of this, I was stumped. I automatically crossed off D and E as potential answers since both seemed the same

[daniel]

I thought some and many were equivalent. Because of this, I was stumped. I automatically crossed off D and E as potential answers since both seemed the same

I was stumped when I got down to (D) and (E), too. While it's true that most of the time "some" and "many" are interchangeable (at least that is my understanding), this question really forces us to think about how these terms differ. After taking this section, I have erased "many = some" from my brain. I now define these as:

some = at least one
many = two or more

Given that this question was on PT1, I feel especially horrid for having conflated some and many during several months of LSAT prep.

[mitrakhanom1]

I would appreciate if someone on the Manhattan team would answer why E is wrong and D is right. I thought some and many mean the same thing. I need a thorough explanation from start to finish because I'm still very confused.

[tommywallach]

To be clear everyone, this question has NOTHING to do with some/many at all. You're all talking about the wrong thing. Some and many DO mean the same thing for the LSAT. This question is based around the logic of the argument, and Mike perfectly explained the issue. You can't have any crime unless you have laws (by definition, crime is the breaking of laws). That's why (D) is correct.

(E) is wrong because ONE law could include many crimes. If it's illegal to kill someone, there could still be murder and manslaughter, for example. If it's illegal to steal, there could still be larceny, grand larceny, petty theft, etc.

-t

[BackoftheEnvelope]

To be clear everyone, this question has NOTHING to do with some/many at all. You're all talking about the wrong thing. Some and many DO mean the same thing for the LSAT. This question is based around the logic of the argument, and Mike perfectly explained the issue. You can't have any crime unless you have laws (by definition, crime is the breaking of laws). That's why (D) is correct.

(E) is wrong because ONE law could include many crimes. If it's illegal to kill someone, there could still be murder and manslaughter, for example. If it's illegal to steal, there could still be larceny, grand larceny, petty theft, etc.

-t

IMO (E) is incorrect precisely because "many" must take on a value of greater than one.

We're dealing with a MBT question which means we have to look for four ACs which could be false and one which must absolutely be true. Let's describe a domain which quantifies over 100 arbitrary objects. Additionally, let's interpret "some" as greater than or equal to one, and "many" as greater than or equal to two. Can we imagine a state of the world in which either (D) or (E) are false? We can indeed describe a circumstance in which (E) is false: "A society that has many (100) crimes has many (2) laws."

This could be false; does not have to be true.

All 100 crimes could be instances of breaking one law. Perhaps there was rioting in a city after the local team lost a hockey (or soccer) game and all 100 crimes committed were instances of breaking one law against rioting. Perhaps there is some weird law banning groups of more than five people from gathering and 100 people simply gather (they would all be breaking one law -- the ban against assembling in groups greater than five).

However, we cannot describe a circumstance in which (D) could be false. Testing the upper and lower bounds of "some" demonstrates this.

If "some" and "many" mean the same thing (i.e., they quantify over the same range of objects in a given domain), then both (D) and (E) would have the same meaning (and both would be correct). Nevertheless, I just woke up and haven't had my morning coffee yet, so I may be looking at this from the completely wrong angle. Always open to feedback!

[suddin]

Test Post.