Contrapositives mean the exact same thing. It's just reversed. Negations are when you make the statement mean something entirely opposite.
Contrapositive:
"All non-water breathing mammals have limbs." Contra: "If it doesn't have limbs, it is not a non-water breathing mammal."
If they all have limbs, and a thing in question doesn't have limbs, it can't be one of them, right? It just says the same statement, in a different order.
Negation:
"All non-water breathing mammals have limbs" becomes "It is NOT the case that All non-water breathing mammals have limbs." So... NOT ALL do. But could some? Sure. Could none? Sure. Just as long as not ALL do. There are some (1+) who do not.
And what do those not do? Have limbs, right? So, there is at least one thing that is a non-water breathing mammal who does NOT have limbs. Dolphins have fins and tails and don't breathe water, so maybe they count since they're not "limbs." Maybe there is a mammal version of a serpent. Who knows. But the opposite of "all do" is "some do not". Even if it's just one, it negates the statement.
It's like looking out the window when someone tells you "All of the dogs have been fed!" and you see two that have no food. "Some of the dogs have not been fed," you say, based on this evidence. You are contradicting him and saying he's wrong based on the new info that two dogs have no food in heir bowls. It severely hurts his argument that he fed all the dogs if some of them weren't fed. And there lies the purpose, I think, of negations. It pokes big holes and undermines arguments.
3
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.
2 comments
I'm not too sure how to reply to people on here but thanks, this clears up alot. I was getting the concepts confused.
Contrapositives mean the exact same thing. It's just reversed. Negations are when you make the statement mean something entirely opposite.
Contrapositive:
"All non-water breathing mammals have limbs." Contra: "If it doesn't have limbs, it is not a non-water breathing mammal."
If they all have limbs, and a thing in question doesn't have limbs, it can't be one of them, right? It just says the same statement, in a different order.
Negation:
"All non-water breathing mammals have limbs" becomes "It is NOT the case that All non-water breathing mammals have limbs." So... NOT ALL do. But could some? Sure. Could none? Sure. Just as long as not ALL do. There are some (1+) who do not.
And what do those not do? Have limbs, right? So, there is at least one thing that is a non-water breathing mammal who does NOT have limbs. Dolphins have fins and tails and don't breathe water, so maybe they count since they're not "limbs." Maybe there is a mammal version of a serpent. Who knows. But the opposite of "all do" is "some do not". Even if it's just one, it negates the statement.
It's like looking out the window when someone tells you "All of the dogs have been fed!" and you see two that have no food. "Some of the dogs have not been fed," you say, based on this evidence. You are contradicting him and saying he's wrong based on the new info that two dogs have no food in heir bowls. It severely hurts his argument that he fed all the dogs if some of them weren't fed. And there lies the purpose, I think, of negations. It pokes big holes and undermines arguments.