Just because some ARE doesn't mean some ARE NOT

Hi @abhee123, 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.

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?