Q21 - All too many weakings are also

[clarafok]

hello,

i'm not sure why C is correct and B is wrong. this is how i saw it

the argument basically says:
all As are also Bs,
and few As are Cs (or fail to be Cs but I just thought of it as Cs)
So, there must be at least one person who is both A and C
*A = weaklings / B = cowards / C = fool

but for C:
since some As are Bs
and some Bs are Cs
Some As are Cs
*A = painters / B = musicians / C = dancers

i guess i didn't choose C because of the use of 'all' in the argument and 'some' in the answer choice. i'm assuming i can ignore the difference in cases like this?

i chose B and i'm guessing it's wrong because it's a mistaken reversal?

please help!

thanks in advance!

[sbuzzetto10]

Hey--
I think the main point you're confusing is the passage says "all TOO MANY weaklings are also cowards" it doesn't mean that ALL weaklings are cowards, just that many are (which can also be "some" in LSAT language)

weaklings=A cowards=B fools=C
so some/many A's are B's, and many/some B's are C's. Therefore, there must be at least one person who is A&C.

Now if you look at C--

painters=A musicians=B dancers=C
some A's are C's (conclusion) since some A's are B's and some B's are C's.

Hope that helps!

[noah]

It's a tough problem! I agree with the gist of the above explanation, and I'd add that (C) is tricky because in the original, "few fail to become" is pretty much a "most do", so I don't see (C) as a perfect match to that since it includes only "some" statements.

I see the original argument as this:

I know two things about cowards, some of them are weaklings, and some (perhaps most?) of them are fools, so there must be an overlap.

It's tough to figure out what to make of "few of them fail to be fools" - we don't know for sure if that means that most of them are fools.

And we know the arguments invalid since the only time we can infer an overlap is when there are two "most" statements.

If you wanted to diagram it, it probably should read:

cowards --(some)--> weakling
cowards --(some)--> fool

Thus: weakling --(some)--> fool

(C) is also invalidly inferring that there's an overlap between two some statements. This time it's about musicians. It might be a bit off since the "few fail to become" seems different than "some" but it's the best of the bunch.

When eliminating, start by looking at the conclusion, and if that's a match, look at the premises:

(A) has a decently-matched conclusion, but it has an "all" premise - eliminate.

(B) has the wrong conclusion - it shouldn't be a "few" statement. Furthermore - and probably more importantly - (B) doesn't provide us two facts about a group (a some and a most) and then from that conclude an overlap.

(D) has the wrong conclusion - we're not creating a chain, we're supposed to find an overlap.

(E) is tempting. The conclusion looks good. But, one of the premises is a "no one" statement, which is basically an all statement. We need just "some" statements or perhaps a "some" and a "most."

[skapur777]

Concerning the argument itself,

Can't you interpret it as two "most" statements?

Just because most weaklings are cowards and most cowards are fools doesn't mean that one person is a weakling and a coward.

Lets say 6/10 weaklings are cowards and that 51/100 cowards are fools...that doesn't mean that those 6 weaklings are a part of that group...does it?

And I'm confused by choice B. I picked C because it was the closest one but I'm confused by answer choice B...is this a valid argument? I still can't seem to figure it out! (And I have the Manhattan Logical Reasoning guide but this one is kinda tough!)

[noah]

Concerning the argument itself,

Can't you interpret it as two "most" statements?

I don't think you can read those as most statements, but even if you did, the argument, as you explain, would be flawed.

And I'm confused by choice B. I picked C because it was the closest one but I'm confused by answer choice B...is this a valid argument? I still can't seem to figure it out!

The immediate need is to have a firm way to eliminate (B) - and I'd say that is that the conclusion is about "few" and we want to see a conclusion about there being "at least one."

(B) is flawed. Most obviously because the conclusion is about whether there are people who can "act like saints" and "speak like moralists." We are given information about actual moralists and actual saints. It might be that there are only 10 moralists and 6 saints in the world (and they're limited in the ways described), but there's tons of people who can speak and act like them respectively.

Tell me if that clears it up.

[skapur777]

Absolutely does, thank you!

[romanmuffin]

Question. Can "few" be translated as "some? I get why B is the wrong answer because it mixes up being a saint and acting like a saint. But I still don't get why B can be eliminated on the basis of it having "few" in the premises (mainly because I thought few = some).

[timmydoeslsat]

I would translate few into a most statement because that gives us a stronger modifier. Few is an interesting word on the LSAT because it gives us a situation where the "some" cannot be construed as a possible "all" situation. We know with the word "few" that we can make a most statement and a some statement validly.


Few NBA players fail to be rich

NBA Players MOST rich


NBA players SOME ~rich

[noah]

Question. Can "few" be translated as "some? I get why B is the wrong answer because it mixes up being a saint and acting like a saint. But I still don't get why B can be eliminated on the basis of it having "few" in the premises (mainly because I thought few = some).

The way that (B) uses "few" is to limit the number, not to say that there are some.

I edited my initial post to provide a bit more on why (B) is incorrect.

BTW, I wouldn't translate "few" as "most" - if it's "a few" then we know it's more than 1 (i.e. some), and if it's "few of them" then it's saying some, but not all.

[timmydoeslsat]

BTW, I wouldn't translate "few" as "most" - if it's "a few" then we know it's more than 1 (i.e. some), and if it's "few of them" then it's saying some, but not all.

In those instances you provided, would it not be the case that you can validly denote that as Most are not.

Few of them A can be diagrammed as:

Most of them ~A

I have always been taught this. That few = most are NOT.

Few does indicate some, but it does not capture the strongest meaning of the word.

For example every A is a B.

You could say A some B, and it is valid, yet it does not capture its strongest meaning.

[noah]

I have always been taught this. That few = most are NOT.

I'm in a room with 4 rabbits. A few of them have white tails.

Couldn't that be 3? Which is most.

There's also: I'm in a room with 5 rabbits, few of them have white tails.

That seems to indicate that most do not, but we could probably debate that!

I haven't seen the LSAT test whether folks have such a refined sense of "few".

[mcrittell]

I'm actually, very lost on this problem from the beginning, esp w the diagramming of the stim. Help please/

[noah]

Go ahead and write out how you would diagram it.

Here's my original explanation, cleaned up a bit:

I see the original argument as this:

I know two things about cowards, some of them are weaklings, and some (perhaps most?) of them are fools, so there must be an overlap.

It's tough to figure out what to make of "few of them fail to be fools" - we don't know for sure if that means that most of them are fools.

And we know the arguments invalid since the only time we can infer an overlap is when there are two "most" statements.

If you wanted to diagram it, it probably should read:

cowards --(some)--> weakling
cowards --(some)--> fool

Thus: weakling --(some)--> fool

(C) is also invalidly inferring that there's an overlap between two some statements. This time it's about musicians. It might be a bit off since the "few fail to become" seems different than "some" but it's the best of the bunch.

When eliminating, start by looking at the conclusion, and if that's a match, look at the premises:

(A) has a decently-matched conclusion, but it has an "all" premise - eliminate.

(B) has the wrong conclusion - it shouldn't be a "few" statement. Furthermore - and probably more importantly - (B) doesn't provide us two facts about a group (a some and a most) and then from that conclude an overlap.

(D) has the wrong conclusion - we're not creating a chain, we're supposed to find an overlap.

(E) is tempting. The conclusion looks good. But, one of the premises is a "no one" statement, which is basically an all statement. We need just "some" statements or perhaps a "some" and a "most."

[mcrittell]

That's actually how I diagrammed it on my paper, but I think I just slightly confused because I mistakenly thought the answer was B, and I wasn't sure how to diagram "few." Thanks!

[josephine77777]

my understanding of B:
no connection has been established between moralist and people who have the ability to articulate the principles by which they live
also, no connection has been established between saints and people who have the courage to act according to the principles they profess.
and those two connection are necessary assumptions for the conclusion to be established.

[mkd000]

I too have a question regarding (B): to clarify, (B) would still be flawed if the conclusion stated "both be saints and moralists" (as opposed to "act like") for the reason that there is no overlap suggested across saints/moralists. This lack of suggestion re: overlap hold regardless of whether "few" is translated as "most not" or as "some". Is this correct? And if this were the case and the conclusion stated "both s + m" rather than "act like", this would not be parallel to the stimulus since the premises in the answer choice are not "some" and "most" as is the case in the stimulus. Is this right? However, both the stimulus and (B) would have similar flaws (i.e., both error in inferring an overlap). Please help me out with these questions!!!

In addition to the above, I have another question. (A) and (E) are valid arguments, right?

Assistance from MLSAT peeps is always appreciated. This really helps me solidify my understanding. Thanks in advance.

[maryadkins]

I don't think I understand your question...(B) is a mess. It's not just an overlap problem. It's just talking about different things altogether.

The easiest way to get rid of (B) is to look for what Noah discussed above. It doesn't actually conclude that there's is some overlap in a way that's coherent and comparable to the stimulus.

As for the other answer choices you asked about:

(A) is good:

W --> C

C --> NH

Some W are NH

So is (E):

Most favor ban (this could be up to all...anywhere between 51% and 100%)

favor ban --> not opposed to stiffer tariffs

Conclusion: at least one not opposed

So good job on that!