Based on the passage, it can be concluded that the author and Broyles-González hold essentially the same attitude toward

Papri on July 31 at 04:43PM

At 1:25:02 (#3)

I am still getting confused about if GP-> GL can deduce GL-some-GP, then why is it not right to logically deduce that GL-some-not GP. Could you explain in a little more detail why just because some are, doesn’t mean that some aren’t?

1 Reply

Ravi on August 1 at 07:46PM

@Papri-Basu,

Happy to help.

GP - >GL

Let's say we have 100 GP. All 100 are GL

We know for a fact that 100 of the GLs are also GPs This is why we can
deduce that GL - some - GP

The reason we can't conclude that GL - some - not GP is because "some"
means at least one and up to all. It's possible that All GPs are also
GLs; we don't have enough information to conclude that some GLs are
for sure not GPs, so this is why we can't conclude that. We just know
that some are, and as mentioned, some means at least one and up to and
including all. For more information, check out our video lessons on
quantifiers, as they will help you to better familiarize yourself with
the terms.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!