All too many weaklings are also cowards, and few cowards fail to be fools. Thus there must be at least one person wh...

Dalaal March 2, 2020

Interpreting "few aren't"

Few is like some, so I understand the statement that "few cowards fail to be fools" to mean that "at least one isn't a fool." Therefore I wouldn't diagram it as C some F, because some means at least one, possibly all. And I know that I have at least one that isn't a fool. therefore the diagram C some F, which includes the possibility that all cowards are fools, contradicts the given quantifying statement. So I diagrammed the given statement as C some not F. Could you help me understand what is wrong with my analysis?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

BenMingov March 13, 2020

Hi Dalaal, thanks for the question.

The wording in the passage: "few cowards fail to be fools" can be translated to "some cowards are fools".

We can get to this by thinking step by step. If few fail to be fools, then this means that the others are fools. We do not know how many are fools, therefore all we can say is that some are fools.

All too many literally means nothing to us with any certainty. All we can know is "some" because all too many will differ from one person's opinion to another.

This gives us two some statements as premises that lead to a "some" conclusion. This is the flaw we are trying to parallel.

Weaklings <-some-> Cowards
Cowards <-some-> Fools

Therefore, Weaklings <-some-> Fools

This is paralleled in answer choice C.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions!