hi Medic Mind, I think your venn diagram for pattern 7 is incorrect as it implies that there are some C that are A and not B. Shouldn't you draw circle C such that it hugs the left hand side of the overlapping area of A and B? There may well be some C that are A but not B but the info doesn't tell us that.
I have the exact same question, how can we just through logical thinking away, when the entirety of the UCAT is dependent upon 'REASONING', that being rational, I think something isn't right, if All A are B, then it is WRONG to say some A or B, that just doesn't make sense... If someone understands something differently and can back up the statement that 'All A are B' = 'Some A are B', can they please help out here
One thing that isn't clicking is how 'All X are Y' and 'Some X are Y' are both possible. Surely the word 'some' suggests 'some are not' therefore making the latter statement incorrect. Could anyone clear this up for me please?
Hey there! So if the main syllogism (in the title) says 'Some X are Y', then we can take it as 'some X are not Y'. However, if we are deducing conclusions from a syllogism (the mini statements you have to assess to be True or False), it is slightly different.
So for example, If the question title says 'All X are Y', and the sub-question had a statement 'some X are Y' then its TRUE. If the question title says 'Some X are Y', you can deduce that not all X are Y (otherwise this would be the syllogism!), so the sub-question 'some X are not Y' would be correct.
but doesnt a mini statement saying 'some x are y' when the stem said all x are y, imply that some x are not y?? in which case it would be false? @@MedicMind
How can 'All A are B' = 'Some A are B'?????, that has to be wrong medicmind can you please clarify!!!! How can we just throw logical thinking away, when the entirety of the UCAT is dependent upon 'REASONING', that being rational, I think something isn't right, if All A are B, then it is WRONG to say some A or B, that just doesn't make sense... If someone understands something differently and can back up the statement that 'All A are B' = 'Some A are B', can they please help out here
The UCAT official definitions do not agree with this. They clearly specify that some does not include all (some has to be more than 1 and less than all). So medicmind in this case is unfortunately incorrect.
Hi Ellie, yes it does! We will be launching new tutorials in the coming month, but these existing tutorials are still relevant to the 2020 exam and fully up to date
11:12 What if the question asked ‘Some A are C, but not B’? Based on the Venn diagram you would assume it to be true, but you would have to answer ‘No’ to the question because it’s an assumption?
it would be "no" because all A are B and so they can't not be B. i dont think it would be "no" because its an assumption. i think. im not sure i might be completely wrong
"Some graduates are not mathematicians," is this true because if all graduates are not mathematicians than some have to not be mathematicians because some could be all of them?
You know for the footwear and shoes, how about some shoes are footwear but not slippers what is the conclusion for that because i couldve drawn my diagram such that none of footwear overlaps shoes on its own but instead it can be aligned with the circle for slippers in shoes. If yu understand😅
For pattern 8, if some B are C, yet all A are B, surely it is possible to say that some A are C? As all A are B? How are we to KNOW that there is no relationship there? Would we answer 'cannot tell' or 'this answer does not follow/incorrect'
@24:47 Between pencils and pillows, why do you only say 'Some pencils are not pillows'? How about other statements such as 'Some pillows are not pencils', 'All pillows are not pencils', 'All pencils are not pillows', 'No pencils are pillows', 'No pillows are pencils'? Do these agree with the original statements?
Dear medic mind ,I don't understand the conclusion for SOME A are not B. Why only conclusion is Some A are B .You said we should consider only statements which are 100% sure .But Some A are B also a possibility ...
“”All beaches are sights” and therefore “some beaches are sights””. I don’t understand. If all beaches are sights, then “some beaches are sights” is false. Because not just SOME but ALL beaches are sights.
If the syllogism tells you 'some beaches are sights', then you know thats the final rule, and hence some beaches are not sights. They would have said 'all beaches are sights' if all (not some) beaches were sights. BUT, if the syllogism says 'all beaches are sights' and the statement question says 'some beaches are sights', then this is true because if all beaches are sights, then at least some are. Its a confusing one, but: • If the syllogism says 'some X are Y', then you know thats the FINAL rule. So it can't be that 'all X are Y' otherwise they would have told you (the final rule!). • If the syllogism says 'all X are Y', then the statements 'all X are Y' and 'some X are Y' are both true.
Medic Mind thanks. I still don’t understand how both can be true but I’ve learnt to just accept it as it is. One way I justify it for myself is that if “all X are Y” and the statement is “some X are Y”, the “some” is referring to the sample, not the entire population of X. For example, if there are 100 X altogether, and All X = Y, If I sampled 50 X from the 100 X, Then “some” (50/100)X = Y.
Sorry to bothor anyone who sees this; in pattern 7, does it Necessarily means that some A are C but not B? The diagram on the vedio suggests that but I can't work that out. Someone help me plz!
Dear medic mind ,I don't understand the conclusion for SOME A are not B. Why only conclusion is Some A are B .You said we should consider only statements which are 100% sure .But Some A are B also a possibility ...
Wow, I can't believe how easy medic mind made this!!! Thanks 😁
If all A are B why can you conclude some A are B? Does this not imply that some A are not B?
I have just watched this video and I have my exam next week thank you so much I wish I saw this earlier!
hi Medic Mind, I think your venn diagram for pattern 7 is incorrect as it implies that there are some C that are A and not B. Shouldn't you draw circle C such that it hugs the left hand side of the overlapping area of A and B? There may well be some C that are A but not B but the info doesn't tell us that.
Hands down the best decision making video i saw. Thank you so much.
God bless you Medic Mind🙏
Thanks for the video.
I noted In pattern 7, all A can be C
This has saved my lifeeee
Hi, thank you for this video. If all A are B, then why are only some A, B please? Or could it be that some A must be B?
I have the exact same question, how can we just through logical thinking away, when the entirety of the UCAT is dependent upon 'REASONING', that being rational, I think something isn't right, if All A are B, then it is WRONG to say some A or B, that just doesn't make sense... If someone understands something differently and can back up the statement that 'All A are B' = 'Some A are B', can they please help out here
you guys are amazing, i appreciate this! wow
This is fantastic. Thank you
For example, a question states "all cats are mammal. If a mammal is cute, it must be a cat".
In this case, how am I suppose to form a Venn diagram?
This fits under a "conditional scenario" - We have a video for this on our UCAT Online Course (www.medicmind.co.uk/ucat-online-course)
@@MedicMind What if I cannot afford it :(
One thing that isn't clicking is how 'All X are Y' and 'Some X are Y' are both possible. Surely the word 'some' suggests 'some are not' therefore making the latter statement incorrect. Could anyone clear this up for me please?
Hey there! So if the main syllogism (in the title) says 'Some X are Y', then we can take it as 'some X are not Y'.
However, if we are deducing conclusions from a syllogism (the mini statements you have to assess to be True or False), it is slightly different.
So for example,
If the question title says 'All X are Y', and the sub-question had a statement 'some X are Y' then its TRUE.
If the question title says 'Some X are Y', you can deduce that not all X are Y (otherwise this would be the syllogism!), so the sub-question 'some X are not Y' would be correct.
but doesnt a mini statement saying 'some x are y' when the stem said all x are y, imply that some x are not y?? in which case it would be false? @@MedicMind
Abid Ahad you have to completely go by the statement, if it’s true it’s true forget about what they are implying
The definition of 'some' is more than 1 but not all, right?
How can 'All A are B' = 'Some A are B'?????, that has to be wrong medicmind can you please clarify!!!! How can we just throw logical thinking away, when the entirety of the UCAT is dependent upon 'REASONING', that being rational, I think something isn't right, if All A are B, then it is WRONG to say some A or B, that just doesn't make sense... If someone understands something differently and can back up the statement that 'All A are B' = 'Some A are B', can they please help out here
The UCAT official definitions do not agree with this. They clearly specify that some does not include all (some has to be more than 1 and less than all). So medicmind in this case is unfortunately incorrect.
Does this still apply to the 2020 UCAT exam?
Hi Ellie, yes it does! We will be launching new tutorials in the coming month, but these existing tutorials are still relevant to the 2020 exam and fully up to date
For pattern 11, what is the relationship for C to B
thank you so much
big thanks!
Thank you
very helpful, thank you. God Bless
Medify arguments actually use outside knowledge which makes it wonder if that should be the case.
Hey Medic mind i really appreciate this. If the stem said "Many are a", can you say some are not a? Thank you
Yes you could say that some are not A if many are A
So ‘some’ can equal ‘all’?
24:45 is the relationship between A and C not known, ie the A that aren't part of C, we don't know how they are related to C?
Thank you :D
For pattern 2 example: "Why are some sights not beaches?" Is that a valid statement to conclude? Since I noticed it wasn't there. 🤔
11:12 What if the question asked ‘Some A are C, but not B’?
Based on the Venn diagram you would assume it to be true, but you would have to answer ‘No’ to the question because it’s an assumption?
it would be "no" because all A are B and so they can't not be B. i dont think it would be "no" because its an assumption. i think. im not sure i might be completely wrong
Terrific. thank you
"Some graduates are not mathematicians," is this true because if all graduates are not mathematicians than some have to not be mathematicians because some could be all of them?
in pattern 11 when it says that all A are B and no A are C. can you say that some B are C?
Yes you can. All cars are vehicles, and no cars are aeroplans. Some vehicles are aeroplanes
You know for the footwear and shoes, how about some shoes are footwear but not slippers what is the conclusion for that because i couldve drawn my diagram such that none of footwear overlaps shoes on its own but instead it can be aligned with the circle for slippers in shoes. If yu understand😅
For pattern 8, if some B are C, yet all A are B, surely it is possible to say that some A are C? As all A are B? How are we to KNOW that there is no relationship there? Would we answer 'cannot tell' or 'this answer does not follow/incorrect'
This is prob too late but i think that conclusion is too vague, thats why we say an unknown relationship. Hope it helps
@24:47 Between pencils and pillows, why do you only say 'Some pencils are not pillows'? How about other statements such as 'Some pillows are not pencils', 'All pillows are not pencils', 'All pencils are not pillows', 'No pencils are pillows', 'No pillows are pencils'? Do these agree with the original statements?
Dear medic mind ,I don't understand the conclusion for SOME A are not B. Why only conclusion is Some A are B .You said we should consider only statements which are 100% sure .But Some A are B also a possibility ...
how many total syllogisms questions we will get in real exam?
Cheers
if some A are B, surely all B could be A because we don't know anything about how B relates to A?
we only know how A relates to B
wait... arent there some exceptions to the patterns tho??
There are, we will have a video on this soon!
“”All beaches are sights” and therefore “some beaches are sights””. I don’t understand. If all beaches are sights, then “some beaches are sights” is false. Because not just SOME but ALL beaches are sights.
Explain this please?
If the syllogism tells you 'some beaches are sights', then you know thats the final rule, and hence some beaches are not sights. They would have said 'all beaches are sights' if all (not some) beaches were sights. BUT, if the syllogism says 'all beaches are sights' and the statement question says 'some beaches are sights', then this is true because if all beaches are sights, then at least some are.
Its a confusing one, but:
• If the syllogism says 'some X are Y', then you know thats the FINAL rule. So it can't be that 'all X are Y' otherwise they would have told you (the final rule!).
• If the syllogism says 'all X are Y', then the statements 'all X are Y' and 'some X are Y' are both true.
Medic Mind thanks. I still don’t understand how both can be true but I’ve learnt to just accept it as it is. One way I justify it for myself is that if “all X are Y” and the statement is “some X are Y”, the “some” is referring to the sample, not the entire population of X.
For example, if there are 100 X altogether, and All X = Y,
If I sampled 50 X from the 100 X,
Then “some” (50/100)X = Y.
Sorry to bothor anyone who sees this; in pattern 7, does it Necessarily means that some A are C but not B? The diagram on the vedio suggests that but I can't work that out. Someone help me plz!
No, some A are C and not B is IMPOSSIBLE IMO
Thanks for the vid! It was very useful
Hi, in pattern 6 is it not true that if all A are B, then all B are A?
Dear medic mind ,I don't understand the conclusion for SOME A are not B. Why only conclusion is Some A are B .You said we should consider only statements which are 100% sure .But Some A are B also a possibility ...