Got it thanks guys! I didn't see this on an actual LSAT no worries; I'm just not a native English speaker and had no idea what this meant (worried I might see it on the LSAT and not know what to do with it)
Did you see this on an actual LSAT? I'm not sure how well this translates because it's an expression and not meant to be taken literally. I don't really think it is using conditional logic
The "nothing if not" expression is understood to denote "decidedly and unmistakably"
He is decidedly and unmistakably lazy. He is definitively lazy. There isn't really an "if he xyz, he is lazy"
I've never had to translate something like this into lawgic before, but it seems like what this is really saying is "his qualities include laziness." so H --> L. H for him, L for lazy. "He" is a sufficient condition for lazy. And contrapositive /l --> h/ if laziness isn't a quality, its not him.
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.
5 comments
Got it thanks guys! I didn't see this on an actual LSAT no worries; I'm just not a native English speaker and had no idea what this meant (worried I might see it on the LSAT and not know what to do with it)
Did you see this on an actual LSAT? I'm not sure how well this translates because it's an expression and not meant to be taken literally. I don't really think it is using conditional logic
The "nothing if not" expression is understood to denote "decidedly and unmistakably"
He is decidedly and unmistakably lazy. He is definitively lazy. There isn't really an "if he xyz, he is lazy"
If hes not lazy, its not him. If it is him, hes lazy
I've never had to translate something like this into lawgic before, but it seems like what this is really saying is "his qualities include laziness." so H --> L. H for him, L for lazy. "He" is a sufficient condition for lazy. And contrapositive /l --> h/ if laziness isn't a quality, its not him.
/lazy ----> /him
him ----> lazy.