Okay just to really finish my understanding, so when there is "no" in front of A, it's the B that will be negated while it is A that will be negated when there is "not' in front of it?
no A equals B----> A->/B
not A equals B----> /A->B
I like “implies” more than “equals.” Might be just my preference, and if it makes sense to you then go with it. No A’s are B’s translates to A implies not B. You will not see sentences literally saying Not A’s are B’s, but you might see a sentence like “Anything that is not an A is a B. You correctly mapped that statement as /A -> B. “If you are not an A, then you are a B.” “Not being an A implies B.”
Okay just to really finish my understanding, so when there is "no" in front of A, it's the B that will be negated while it is A that will be negated when there is "not' in front of it?
Try simplifying the language the way you would during the test. No As are Bs would translate simply into "If A, then not B." Contrapositive is "If B, then not A." 7sage lawgic uses a / for negation.
Hey Yes that's what I thought too. But I was just browsing through Manhattan Prep for PT 9 stuff, the mentor there wrote something like this:
When we convert that "No A are B" into conditional logic, it is the same as saying "All A are ~B".
And that was alarming, because I always thought NoA=B equals NoB=A.
Does someone know what this mentor was talking about?
No As are B means that an A can never be a B. In other words No thing that is an A is ever a B. It would look like this: A------->/B or B--------->/A. So if we know that something is a B we know that it cannot be an A since no As are ever Bs.
Interpreting it as /B--------> A would mean that everything in the world that is not a B must be an A or conversely everything in the world that is not an A is a B. This is much different than No As are Bs.
A real world example would be if I told you that No humans can fly. Correctly translated it would be Human-----> /Fly. Contra positively we know that if we come across something that can fly than it cannot be a human. This is because being able to fly denies a necessary condition for being a human.
The erroneous interpretation of No humans can fly would be /Fly-------> Humans. This would mean that everything that does not fly is a human and everything that is not a human can fly. We know that this is not true and different than No humans can fly.
The lessons in the core curriculum starting here (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/logic/) are really useful for practicing this stuff and making it second nature. Hopefully this helps!
I'm not sure I understand how you're using the "~", given that you use "no" as the negative in the first statement. But, the contrapositive of "no A are B" (A -->/B) is "no B are A" (B-->/A)
Hope that helps!
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
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.
12 comments
lol spit my water reading yo comment. Thanks. :smiley:
@harveylou1239 said:
Perfect. Thank you Dr. Brown!
Lol not a doctor just my initials :) good luck
Perfect. Thank you Dr. Brown!
@harveylou1239 said:
Okay just to really finish my understanding, so when there is "no" in front of A, it's the B that will be negated while it is A that will be negated when there is "not' in front of it?
no A equals B----> A->/B
not A equals B----> /A->B
I like “implies” more than “equals.” Might be just my preference, and if it makes sense to you then go with it. No A’s are B’s translates to A implies not B. You will not see sentences literally saying Not A’s are B’s, but you might see a sentence like “Anything that is not an A is a B. You correctly mapped that statement as /A -> B. “If you are not an A, then you are a B.” “Not being an A implies B.”
Okay just to really finish my understanding, so when there is "no" in front of A, it's the B that will be negated while it is A that will be negated when there is "not' in front of it?
no A equals B----> A->/B
not A equals B----> /A->B
Thanks Lucas. That surely helped. Thanks a ton!
@harveylou1239 said:
What about Not all A's are B's, does that translate into A some B?
It means that some As are not Bs. In lawgic, A some /B
"Some" means at least 1, but could mean all. All implies most, and most implies some. At a minimum, at least 1 A is not a B.
Try simplifying the language the way you would during the test. No As are Bs would translate simply into "If A, then not B." Contrapositive is "If B, then not A." 7sage lawgic uses a / for negation.
What about Not all A's are B's, does that translate into A some B?
@harveylou1239 said:
Hey Yes that's what I thought too. But I was just browsing through Manhattan Prep for PT 9 stuff, the mentor there wrote something like this:
When we convert that "No A are B" into conditional logic, it is the same as saying "All A are ~B".
And that was alarming, because I always thought NoA=B equals NoB=A.
Does someone know what this mentor was talking about?
No As are B means that an A can never be a B. In other words No thing that is an A is ever a B. It would look like this: A------->/B or B--------->/A. So if we know that something is a B we know that it cannot be an A since no As are ever Bs.
Interpreting it as /B--------> A would mean that everything in the world that is not a B must be an A or conversely everything in the world that is not an A is a B. This is much different than No As are Bs.
A real world example would be if I told you that No humans can fly. Correctly translated it would be Human-----> /Fly. Contra positively we know that if we come across something that can fly than it cannot be a human. This is because being able to fly denies a necessary condition for being a human.
The erroneous interpretation of No humans can fly would be /Fly-------> Humans. This would mean that everything that does not fly is a human and everything that is not a human can fly. We know that this is not true and different than No humans can fly.
The lessons in the core curriculum starting here (https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/logic/) are really useful for practicing this stuff and making it second nature. Hopefully this helps!
Hey Yes that's what I thought too. But I was just browsing through Manhattan Prep for PT 9 stuff, the mentor there wrote something like this:
When we convert that "No A are B" into conditional logic, it is the same as saying "All A are ~B".
And that was alarming, because I always thought NoA=B equals NoB=A.
Does someone know what this mentor was talking about?
I'm not sure I understand how you're using the "~", given that you use "no" as the negative in the first statement. But, the contrapositive of "no A are B" (A -->/B) is "no B are A" (B-->/A)
Hope that helps!