Specifically, I am looking at PT 68.S2.Q23, the second sentence: "We must therefore reject Tolstoy's rash claim that if we knew a lot about the events leading up to any action, we would cease to regard that action as freely performed").

So that would be diagrammed out as:

Not (know about events ---> ~freely performed)

Which I was told turns into:

(Know about events ---> freely performed)

My question is a theoretical one, and that is: WHY do you negate a conditional by introducing the sufficient and denying the necessary?

2 follow up questions:

  • (Theory) Why is it incorrect to say when you negate a conditional, the sufficient could OR could not lead to the necessary?
  • Is there is this lesson in the CC (negating a conditional?) I could not find it.
  • 1

    5 comments

    • Wednesday, Feb 03 2021

      Thank you for your comments this thread helped me understand a separate problem with similar elements!

      0
    • Sunday, Mar 19 2017

      Thanks for the help! :D

      0
    • Sunday, Mar 19 2017

      All correct. Well done!

      2
    • Sunday, Mar 19 2017

      Thanks so much @tutordavidlevine115! To clarify, in the 3rd CC link you sent, JY said that to negate A--->B, you could say EITHER that:

      A (--some--)~B OR A and ~B.

      So in the case above, that would mean: Not (know about events--->~freely performed)

      Translates to:

      know about events (--some---) freely performed

      OR

      Know about events and freely performed

      Is that correct? Thanks in advance.

      0
    • Sunday, Mar 19 2017

      So that would be diagrammed out as:

      Not (know about events ---> ~freely performed)

      Which I was told turns into:

      (Know about events ---> freely performed)

      This is incorrect. When you negate a conditional relationship, you create new intersectional relationship.

      The logical equivalent of "Not (know about events ---> ~freely performed)" is

      "know about events (-SOME -) freely performed" (Sometimes, we can know a lot about the events leading up to any action and regard that action as freely performed)

      Now to answer your question 1: you can! Why? I ask you a question: What does it mean to say A is a sufficient condition of B? It's saying that the presence of A guarantees or triggers B. Another way of saying it is that if A exists, B must exist as well. By negating the conditional relationship we are essentially saying that sometimes when A happens B does not happen.

      Pertininent Lessons.

      https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-some-statements

      https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-negate-all-statements

      https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/deny-the-relationship

      https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/how-to-negate-statements-in-english

      3

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?