All too many weaklings are also cowards, and few cowards fail to be fools. Thus there must be at least one person wh...
abhee123July 11, 2020
Just because some ARE doesn't mean some ARE NOT
I see that the sentence "Few cowards fail to be fools" is diagrammed as C-s-F but shouldn't it be C-s- not F. One of the lessons was just because some are doesn't mean that some aren't. So why are we allowed to make the switch here?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Thanks for the question! Usually, that’s true, the mere fact that some X are Y doesn’t entail that some X aren’t Y. But this sentence is a bit different. We’re told here that few cowards fail to be fools. This construction is a bit odd; if few cowards fail to be fools, that must mean that most cowards are fools. Few cowards failing to be fools entails that most cowards are fools, since only a few cowards fail to be fools. And since most cowards are fools also means that some cowards are fools, we can say that some cowards are fools here.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
Ashley123August 12, 2021
Also, can you please clarify if few normally just means some or if it will always indicate some do and most don't? Is few supposed to be like only some? I'm a little confused on that. In this case, I read the stimulus as saying "not many cowards are not fools". Since we were taught that many means some, I interpreted it to mean "C-some-not fools. We were taught to use the information stated and not take the opposite of the some statement. So I still don't understand how we are supposed to know that the stimulus wants us to focus on the rest that are fools instead of the stated some that are not fools. Can you please explain this discrepancy?
