@tutordavidlevine115 I’d go back to the lesson I linked, but essentially it’s this: any negation to a universally conditional statement (If X then Y) becomes an intersection statement (X some /Y).
@tutordavidlevine115 I was directly addressing @laurenbev90108 . @adamwegh37 ’s translation, while not precise, is pretty close to a correct negation. The only distinction I made there was the addition of "some"
Original statement:A public forum can lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy if participants cannot discuss issues freely”
@laurenbev90108 ’s statement: A public forum cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy if participants can discuss issues freely
She’s negated both conditions. But that’s not how we negate statements in English.
@adamwegh37 trying to understand what you did there.
If participants cannot discuss issues freely (this is the sufficient condition, notice the "if") THEN a public forum can lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy.
Negated statement: If participants cannot discuss issues freely ( suff condition remains the same) THEN a public forum cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy.
This seems easy to me and if I'm wrong I'd appreciate if someone would correct me.
Very close. "Some participants can't discuss issues freely and public forums cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy ". To negate a statement, essentially you want " Some [of the sufficient] is not [the necessary].” check out this lesson: http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/how-to-negate-statements-in-english/
@laurenbev90108 you were negating the sufficient condition instead of the necessary one.
"A public forum cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy if participants cannot discuss issues freely."
So the 'cannot' in the second part of the sentence should not be changed to 'can'?
I think it makes more sense to read 'A public forum cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy if participants can discuss issues freely.", but I'm not sure which is the correct sentence in terms of demonstrating negation in logic. Just trying to clear up any confusion on my end, thanks!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
7 comments
@tutordavidlevine115 I’d go back to the lesson I linked, but essentially it’s this: any negation to a universally conditional statement (If X then Y) becomes an intersection statement (X some /Y).
@adamwegh37 realized that after I wrote the comment, only thing I don't understand is why you added "some"here. Appreciate the help!
@tutordavidlevine115 I was directly addressing @laurenbev90108 . @adamwegh37 ’s translation, while not precise, is pretty close to a correct negation. The only distinction I made there was the addition of "some"
Original statement:A public forum can lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy if participants cannot discuss issues freely”
@laurenbev90108 ’s statement: A public forum cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy if participants can discuss issues freely
She’s negated both conditions. But that’s not how we negate statements in English.
Sorry I wasn’t clear.
@adamwegh37 trying to understand what you did there.
If participants cannot discuss issues freely (this is the sufficient condition, notice the "if") THEN a public forum can lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy.
Negated statement: If participants cannot discuss issues freely ( suff condition remains the same) THEN a public forum cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy.
This seems easy to me and if I'm wrong I'd appreciate if someone would correct me.
Very close. "Some participants can't discuss issues freely and public forums cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy ". To negate a statement, essentially you want " Some [of the sufficient] is not [the necessary].” check out this lesson: http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/how-to-negate-statements-in-english/
@laurenbev90108 you were negating the sufficient condition instead of the necessary one.
"A public forum cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy if participants cannot discuss issues freely."
So the 'cannot' in the second part of the sentence should not be changed to 'can'?
I think it makes more sense to read 'A public forum cannot lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy if participants can discuss issues freely.", but I'm not sure which is the correct sentence in terms of demonstrating negation in logic. Just trying to clear up any confusion on my end, thanks!
Yes, that's correct.