Subscription pricing
There is a really tough and confused question I have: IS No effective law(A) is unenforceable(B) = All enforceable laws(-B) are effective(-A) RIGHT?
Due to the first sentence is a double negative one, should I reverses it directly like -B→-A? Then it becomes like that: Enforceable is effective law and it is the same as the sentence in my question.
However, if I change the double negative sentence to an affirmative one, then it becomes: Effective law is enforceable. Then reverses it: Unenforceable is not effective law, which is not the same as the sentence in my question.
I have no idea which one is correct, should I change the double negative sentence first? Or should I reverse the double negative sentence directly?
0
2 comments
No effective law is unenforceable.
What this means is that every effective law is (not) unenforceable, meaning enforceable.
Effective law---->enforceable
If we find something in the world that is not enforceable (unenforceable i.e. a failure of the necessary condition) then we can say that it is not an effective law.
The lesson here is that the "no" applies to a negation of the necessary condition. Sometimes this means negating something to something positively stated.
"No birds are featherless"
If something is a bird then it is not featherless, which more succinctly put:
If bird then have feathers.
B---->F
I hope this helps
David
No effective law is unenforceable.
Idea 1: Effective Law - EL
Idea 2: Unenforceable - /F
Conditional Indicator: No - Group 4
Whichever idea we place in the necessary condition will be negated. So we are left with two options:
EL -> F or /F -> /EL
Double negatives, several logical indicators, messy grammar: all of these tactics can be used to hide the meaning of any given sentence. I've found that since I started thoroughly diagramming EVERYTHING in BR and returning to the CC when I'm not sure, my intuition for Lawgic has improved.