as some would mean that some aren't.
Incorrect:
"Adjective: An unspecified amount or number of"
Some can include all, the only thing it definitely precludes is none.
as some would mean that some aren't.
But if all Canadians are right handed and all right handed are opticians. Then all Canadians are opticians or all opticians are Canadian, it doesn't matter which way round it is. The conclusion must therefore be incorrect, as ALL are and not just some, as some would mean that some aren't.
I see what you're saying. BUT the problem with questions like this is that you need to define the key words.
If the conclusion has the word 'some' in it, does that then autmatically also mean 'not all'? Because depending on that definition, the answer would change.
The word some is defined very clearly in many dictionaries.
It does not preclude 'all', so the conclusion is correct.
The word some is defined very clearly in many dictionaries.
It does not preclude 'all', so the conclusion is correct.
Goodness me. It's a rule of thumb. It is helpful in many cases, this being one of them.
Entirely realistic premises followed by an entirely unrealistic conclusion usually means there's something up with the logic of an argument.
What part of that don't you understand?![]()
In that case, if the word 'all' can be considered a subset of 'some' then the conclusion would be correct. However, it's badly worded. IT would be better written as 'At least some canadians are opticians'
Goodness me. It's a rule of thumb. It is helpful in many cases, this being one of them.
Entirely realistic premises followed by an entirely unrealistic conclusion usually means there's something up with the logic of an argument.
What part of that don't you understand?![]()
Consider this harder multiple choice question from here.
a. All dogs are brown.
b. All pitbulls are brown.
1.Some pitbulls are dogs
2.Some dogs are pitbulls
3.All pitbulls are dogs
4.None of the conclusions above is correct
In the real world we know a pitbull is a dog. In this example we don't.
Surely here, the answer is number 4?
Goodness me. It's a rule of thumb. It is helpful in many cases, this being one of them.
Entirely realistic premises followed by an entirely unrealistic conclusion usually means there's something up with the logic of an argument.
What part of that don't you understand?![]()
Surely here, the answer is number 4?
Indeed, when you solve the pure logic presented and not the 'real world truisms' of the examples, which is the point I am trying to get across to Al Vallario - the objective is to solve the logic, not interpret a real world situation and apply 'external knowledge'. Many such tests even try and trip you up by making the logical answer seem realistically stupid, to make you doubt yourself and thus see if you are solving the logic or interpreting things.
Just to clarify, this is the correct Venn diagram:
![]()
TheCenturion, Nanoman - you're making it much harder than it really is! (unless I'm missing something). Look at my wobbly diagram again - do you dispute it? It follows logically from the statements a and b. From my diagram clearly 'some opticians are Canadian' is a true statement. Non-Canadian right-handers and the definition of some possibly including all dont need to come into it. Can you construct a diagram that satisfies the statements a and b for which the statement 'some opticians are Canadian' is false?
This would be my venn diagram as well.
You're missing my previous point, Kenai summed it up. My previous definition of some was somewhat out. I had assumed that some only accounted for a certain percentage meaning that the conclusion could conclude that some opticians were not Canadian. Where as some defined by Webster, denotes an undetermined amount, which means the statement is correct, some are.