I'm thinking about the term "scorching hot" as an example.
The opposite of "scorching hot" would be "freezing cold".
The negation of "scorching hot" would be "not scorching hot".
"Not scorching hot", though it could mean "freezing cold", it could also mean "warm".
Opposition and negation do not ask you to do the same thing. By accidentally interpreting the word "negation" to mean "opposition", you will accidentally miss out on a spectrum of meanings for a negated word.
@JJR remember negation is the composition of contradictions. Cold is not a type of negation; it's one contradiction. Cold does not negate hot and hot does not negate cold.
Everybody who watched Star Wars will understand the instructor's references. Everybody who understands the instructor's references will ace the LSAT. Therefore, since I watched Star Wars, I will ace the LSAT.
ugh. i hate that we're using a slash for negation instead of a turnstile, tilde, or even exclamation point. I'm going to confuse it for a slash between two premises.
Might be jumping the gun here, but is it safe to say that negating is useful for categorical arguments? Like if the argument is
All cats are sad. Garfield is a cat, therefore Garfield is sad.
The negation of sad would be unhappy, neutral, etc. which would allow other members of the cat set to feel a wide range of "sad-adjacent" emotions? Could very well be overthinking this and might hit myself later for even making this comment :-)
Yo so i took a practice test and it had the phrasing un- like unhot or unwashed is this enough to go on to say it's equivellent to not or what are yall's thoughts
@LeoFisher I would say yes, you can still use a negation slash for "un". Something unhot isn't necessarily cold (ie could be lukewarm) but we know for sure it's not hot.
@achois1025 It's a true statement. It's not a negation ... the negation would be "not-[everything is a potato or not a potato]." It's not valid ... that's a misnomer because validity is only a property of arguments. But it is true. In fact, it can't be false!
I believe you use what ever works for you. However, more likely than not, you should use the J.Y. method because of its simplicity. The more advanced an argument, the more difficult it might be to show negation when graphing in future lessons.
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.
52 comments
I dont understand how using these symbols and letters is beneficial taking time on for the LSAT
I'm thinking about the term "scorching hot" as an example.
The opposite of "scorching hot" would be "freezing cold".
The negation of "scorching hot" would be "not scorching hot".
"Not scorching hot", though it could mean "freezing cold", it could also mean "warm".
Opposition and negation do not ask you to do the same thing. By accidentally interpreting the word "negation" to mean "opposition", you will accidentally miss out on a spectrum of meanings for a negated word.
so is "filthy rich" a member of rich? or is it also member for the negation of rich?
is the use of lawgic just to help us piece through items on the test, or will we actually be seeing this methodology on the LSAT?
@elysestraka See how it's relevant in this question:https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/intro-youtry-1-pt123-s3-q22
Further in this module you'll also see these:
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/conditional-youtry-1-pt111-s3-q18
https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/conditional-and-set-logic/drill-pt124-s3-q19-pt110-s2-q23-pt112-s1-q14
Those are just a few examples of how conditional logic is tested in real questions.
So cold would just be one type of negation, because it's included in not hot?
@JJR remember negation is the composition of contradictions. Cold is not a type of negation; it's one contradiction. Cold does not negate hot and hot does not negate cold.
it is super freaky to be in discrete math and see all of the same rules apply in my LSAT studies...
@Michael.F I was literally thinking the same thing!
this lesson unlocked something for me -- I feel my brain growing!!!!
Is my use of Lawgic accurate here?
Everybody who watched Star Wars will understand the instructor's references. Everybody who understands the instructor's references will ace the LSAT. Therefore, since I watched Star Wars, I will ace the LSAT.
WSW ---> UIR
UIR ---> ALSAT
i^WSW ---> i^UIR
-----------------------
i^ALSAT
Will we ever be dealing with opposition?
Cake or not-cake?
I jokingly said, "not rich" to negate rich, and I got it right, haha!
ugh. i hate that we're using a slash for negation instead of a turnstile, tilde, or even exclamation point. I'm going to confuse it for a slash between two premises.
From a more mathematical perspective…
Negation is distributive, and when the negation acts on ANDs and ORs, they switch.
Example:
Let’s assume our financial state is one of these four:
Rich
Comfy
Poor
Broke
Rich is then logically equivalent to (could be replaced by):
not comfy AND not poor AND not broke
So then, NOT Rich is logically equivalent to:
not (not comfy AND not poor AND not broke)
Using the distributive property of the negation (just as a negative multiple is distributed through parenthesis) and the AND to OR rule…
Not Rich = comfy OR poor OR broke
Assuming we can only have one financial state at a time, we can clearly see that the negation of Rich is not poor, but any other state besides Rich.
this is just the joke that everything in the world is either a salad or not a salad
Might be jumping the gun here, but is it safe to say that negating is useful for categorical arguments? Like if the argument is
All cats are sad. Garfield is a cat, therefore Garfield is sad.
The negation of sad would be unhappy, neutral, etc. which would allow other members of the cat set to feel a wide range of "sad-adjacent" emotions? Could very well be overthinking this and might hit myself later for even making this comment :-)
So a similar rule to Negative Comparatives in that it opens the door to multiple possibilities as opposed to one clear answer?
Correction: Padawans are Jedi (members of the Jedi Order), but they're just not Jedi Knights (who are required to pass the trials). you're welcome :0
@rainbowmit1 wait i googled it and i'm wrong goodbye, sorry for being a smartass, goodbye
@rainbowmit1 today i learned to never try and "erm actually" J.Y.
"Man's not hot never hot"
Man may be...
warm
cold
cool
tepid
room temp
freezing
@ksnk5 this is amazing thank you
Yo so i took a practice test and it had the phrasing un- like unhot or unwashed is this enough to go on to say it's equivellent to not or what are yall's thoughts
@LeoFisher I would say yes, you can still use a negation slash for "un". Something unhot isn't necessarily cold (ie could be lukewarm) but we know for sure it's not hot.
I thought the opposite of hot was chopped
@LisetteNevarez Given a different context, linguistically you're not wrong haha.
@LisetteNevarez Thanks for a good laugh LOL
Everything in the universe is either a potato or not a potato.
Is this a negation, a true statement, or valid statement?
(I was sort of joking when I began this comment, but now I'm genuinely wondering.)
@achois1025 It's a true statement. It's not a negation ... the negation would be "not-[everything is a potato or not a potato]." It's not valid ... that's a misnomer because validity is only a property of arguments. But it is true. In fact, it can't be false!
Hardest example for me to perceive so far: Jedi....
This helps me better understand the Disney question from earlier
Isn't the negation symbol:
¬
Please tell me if this is wrong or right?
I believe you use what ever works for you. However, more likely than not, you should use the J.Y. method because of its simplicity. The more advanced an argument, the more difficult it might be to show negation when graphing in future lessons.
@LegallyLawyer I thought this was the negation symbol
~
The slash negation symbolism is making my formal logic phil background go insane