Any advice for breaking down SA questions into valid argument forms like JY does in the videos? The more questions I see, the more challenging it is to find an AC that matches my diagram. Is there another way to approach SA questions? Sometimes it seems like the AC for these questions is just a restatement of the conclusion and/or my prephrases don't match the answer choices very well. Does anyone think of these questions like strengthen questions? Any suggestions would be great! Thank you!

So I’m really struggling with these causation questions, not because I'm getting the wrong answer, but because I’m confused about Causation strategy, and when to use it. So I have 2 questions.

1st one is, When approaching general weakening/strengthening questions, that are not causal, we approach these with the strategies JY has laid out for us, in those lessons, and not as a causation question, correct? Is there an easy way to tell the difference between general weakening strengthening/weakening questions? What tips would you recommend?

2nd question is, I'm having trouble in applying the causation strategy to questions. I just did the Synesthesiacs question, under the Causation questions in the syllabus (LSAT Preptest 34, Section 2, Question 12). I asked this in the question just now, but I'm hoping I'll get more replies here.

So I hovered over A and B. A to me felt like it most weakened it, and I wanted to pick it, but to me it didn’t really feel like I was following the structure of how to attack these. In it, this question introduces a data set, in the form of research, with some people. Don’t know if I should have construed that as co-incidence or correlation, since some is kinda vague, so I went with Correlation. Since it’s a data set, I looked for an answer that introduces a competing data set. And B was the only one. B didn’t really seem like it weakened it, but hey, I followed the structure (or did I?). If I had followed the Co-incidence rules, then I would have arrived at A, since it is a competing explanation. Is that where I screwed up?

If not, could someone please clarify for me what I’m doing wrong. Do I follow this strategy down to a T? It feels like when I go off intuition I do better, but I don’t want to rely on that.

Thank you

Hi! Here is an updated strategy from the below post

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/10749/my-rc-strategy-that-got-me-to-0

What I've found helpful in addition to the original post is thinking about the range of what the central theme CAN and CANNOT do based on what is known and not known about the central theme. This is especially helpful for those difficult curve-breaker Qs (inference Qs, analogy Qs) , because curve-breaker Qs usually test the MEANING of the passage, rather than what's explicitly stated. You can only draw the meaning of the overall passage/ key theme when you understand the range of what is known and then going one step further, inferring what a certain thing can/ cannot do.

How do we figure out what something can/ cannot do? Let's make a very quick example. Say that the passage says that frogs only swim in the water. This is what we know about the frogs. Then we can infer /water -> frog don't swim. Thinking about this range really helps to understand the key features of the central theme and its importance. (When it fails the requirements it needs, it cannot do its job (contrapositive of S-> N) But obviously, when the sufficient condition is met, we don't know anything about whether necessary condition was/is/will be met (but I think it is less relevant in RC. What's more relevant is thinking about the range of necessary conditions and understanding what would happen when those conditions fail)

Here's the bad news: in the RC section, the LSAT doesn't get this explicit about sufficient and necessary conditions. The curve-breaker Qs are difficult for a reason. If everyone can identify the conditions easily, then it wouldn't be a curve-breaker Q. I repeat, the LSAT doesn't usually give you the typical "conditional indicators" (if, when, any, only when, requires, etc) to figure out the sufficient/necessary conditions easily. Sometimes they do. But most of the time, we have to really infer about the necessary conditions based on what the passage says. The passages only HINT at these necessary conditions by omitting something, or by only stating 1 necessary condition (which, by default, would mean that other conditions won't work without this condition)

The good news: Here's the typical way the LSAT presents a necessary condition.

For example, let's take PT62 passage 1. No worries, I won't spoil too specific details for you.

What we do know about lichenometry is

Think about what's known about lichenometry. From there, infer what it CAN and CANNOT do. According to the passage, lichenometry only does certain things within a specific location only using certain materials. It cannot function when something falls outside that location (not specifically the LOCATION, but certain geographical features necessary; if the certain geographic location is missing the material required, then the necessary condition fails and lichenometry cannot do its job.

But you also have to be extremely careful and identify precisely what the necessary condition is. If you generalize too much, then you might also be susceptible to trap answer choices. What lichenometry needs is a certain material. From this, we can only infer that if it misses the material as a whole, it won't be able to do its job. However, if it has certain qualifying conditions that affects the material, then it might still be able to do its job. We must carefully distinguish what must be true from what can be true)

Again, this is what's hard about the LSAT RC passages: the necessary conditions are nowhere explicitly stated. The LSAT does not explicitly say what lichenometry can or cannot do.You have to combine all those info above (what we know/ don't know about lichenometry) ; it is our job to infer the range of function based on what's known, and IDENTIFY PRECISELY what the necessary condition is.

You can also go backwards. Ask the question what CAN it do to backtrack; asking that question helps to summarize what we do know and what we don't)

Also, this strategy applies when the subject (central theme) involves a human being. It is because a human being is usually a central theme in a diversity passage, and the diversity passages are all about what someone/ some social group couldn't do before and how the social structures/ individual consciousness evolved for them to be able to do something.

For example, PT 63, passage 2. (don't worry, i won't spoil the deets)

It is about Kate Chopin. She is compared to other groups of writers. The key to the passage is all about what those groups did/ didn't do and from that inferring what they could/ couldn't do given the social structures and conventions at the time. Pretty much the same thing with PT 62 passage 4 on Jewett.

(I am using PTs 62 and 63 as examples because they are in Superprep II)

Obviously this strategy can be applied to science/ law passages as well.

Law passages- what the law can/ cannot do, theory can/ cannot do, a material can/ cannot do

Science passages- conditions under which a hypothesis would work, conditions under which the central theme (subject being experimented etc) can function

My theory is that knowing what a subject can/cannot do is especially central to understanding the LSAT passages BECAUSE as lawyers we would be basically doing the same thing. What can we do based on this law? What can't we do? What can this law do for us? What can't it do? It is all about inferring about our agency and the range of usefulness/ restrictiveness of the law based on what's known/ not known about the law.

To summarize:

Important /= necessary. Also, /important and still necessary.

Think about LR necessary assumption Qs. Some assumptions are important, but not necessary. Some assumptions are not important, but necessary.

Hope this helps

Oh yeah PLEASE DO NOT SHARE THIS WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES. I want this info to be limited to 7Sage. Thanks

I've been struggling with a bunch of the LR questions and have gone back into the CC and used up almost of all of my questions sets.

I'm tired of looking at questions that I've done before because I remember what the answer is pretty much. Would it be bad if I burned the rest of the 30's to give myself some new questions to look at?

Can someone explain to me this stimulus? It says "Which one of the following could be an accurate and complete list of the students who review only Sunset?" Usually, the "complete and accurate" stimuli want a list of all the items across all possible worlds that fulfill the requirement. However, in this problem, they are apparently only asking for the students in 1 world. So answer C says J and L, which would be true if you looked at all possible worlds (ie J can review only S in one world whereas L can't, and L can review only S in another world where J can't). However, the correct answer is A, which says only L. Answer A thus only applies to 2 of the 3 possible worlds. I don't understand how the stimulus specifies this. It reads exactly the same as stimului from other games that are asking across all possible worlds.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-1-game-4/

I don't get the explanation for why A is right. All we know is that do produce a good meal you can't have bad food. That would seem to imply that you could have a good meal with mediocre food. So how can you then take the the next conditional relationship between bad soil and good food to prove anything about good meals. All you can prove is that you can't have good food with bad soil. But maybe you can have mediocre food with bad soil. And if so, you can possibly produce a good meal with bad soil, since mediocre food can possibly produce a good meal.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-37-section-2-question-12/

Have you done this problem? I'm seeking justification for the correct answer choice.

It would be great to have JY analyze it in a video.

Hi. I'm not sure how to translate "those in search of jobs should move to a city with high-tech businesses" into lawgic. I thought the word "should" might be a necessary condition, but JY didn't put an arrow to connect JOBS and HIGH TECH. Whereas in Manhattan forum, one of the instructors translated it as "if you want JOBS, go to HT" which would require the use of an arrow. So I'm not sure which is the right approach to take..

Also, is it even a valid argument?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-4-question-25/

I'm having trouble understanding the translation for the conditional logic to this question.

All material bodies are divisible into parts,

Material bodies --> Divisible

and everything divisible is imperfect.

Divisible --> NOT perfect

It follows that all material bodies are imperfect.

material bodies --> NOT perfect

It like wise follows that the spirit is not a material body.

Spirits --> NOT material bodies.

I chained this question up like this (which is wrong I think):

Material bodies --> NOT Spirits

Material bodies --> Divisible --> NOT perfect

There are two conditional arrows connected to Material bodies, but I represented it like this because I can't draw it out here.

The answer shows the chain like this:

Material bodies --> Divisible --> NOT perfect --> NOT Spirits

How did they come up with this chain?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-3-question-10/

Sufficient Assumption question

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-4-question-21/

Under the timed condition, I got this question right by diagramming as follows:

Context: Ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies (A) → Sincerity (/B) (B → /A)

Premise: Succeed (C) → Trust (D)

Conclusion: Succeed (C) → face unpleasant realities and speak about them honestly (/A) (ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies)

Answer choice

(A): D → B

So I picked (A) and moved on.

However, when I was BRing, I got confused by the first sentence:

"Traditional norms (...) prevent sincerity by requiring one to ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies."

Because of the word "require," I thought I should diagram as

(1) Sincerity (/B) → Ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies (A) (/B → A)

(Basically this means if you want to prevent sincerity you have to ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies.)

Since I couldn't connect the chains, I thought again and thought I was right diagramming as follows:

(2) Ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies (A) → Sincerity (/B) (B → /A)

(If you ignore unpleasant realities and tell small lies, you can prevent sincerity)

But is (2) the right way to diagram this? Is it correct to think that "by" is a sufficient condition indicator? :(

Any help would be very much appreciated!!

Hi all

I cannot find any reason why (C) is wrong here.

It seems to me that (C) eliminates one alternative cause (genetic cause?) and thereby strengthen the argument that P-fat is responsible for the development of eyesight.

I compared (C) with (A) in S4Q17 in the same PT. (A) eliminates one possibility alternative by saying that "Earth did not pass through clouds of cosmic dust earlier than 800,000 years ago. This is because it negates an possibility that something other than fluctuation might have caused ice-age if the ice-age had occurred earlier than 800,000 years ago when the fluctuation started to happen. (A) turned out to strengthen the argument. Then, why does (C) not strengthen the argument? (I mean Q14)

Thank you very much

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-14/

From BR'ing, I've noted fundamental concepts of of strengthening/weakening cause and effect arguments. For instance, you can strengthen the argument by saying that in the absence of the cause, we don't have the effect.

My question is where this was in the curriculum - I watched the videos on causation theory but couldn't find it there, nor did I find it in strengthening/weakening lessons.

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on what to do regarding getting better with LG. As of right now, I am working through the Powerscore LG Bible. I am struggling with making inferences to basic linear games and am consistently missing at least 1-2 per game of that nature.

I was wondering if I should be going through a different book in conjunction with this program? Also, where would you recommend I start in the course in order to get right into LG. I bought premium access and have the general concepts of logic down from the Powerscore material.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I was only able to answer this Q correctly by process of elimination.

I am still unsure why A is right on its own merit, however.

Isn't it too much of an assumption to say that Chopin thinks that their idealization was "misguided?"

I know that Chopin does not "agree" with them and does not "share" their nostalgia.

But how do you infer from "not sharing" to "misguided?"

I may disagree with someone else's opinion, and can still think that someone's opinion is valid/ worth its own merit etc.

"Misguided" just sounds too strong for me and kind of out of character for the LSAT.

Could anyone explain further? Many thanks.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-passage/

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-4-passage-2-questions/

Hi everyone,

I recently participated in J.Y.'s LR Crash Course Workshop #3 and wanted to share some of the key takeaways from the discussions we had over the course of four days. It was humbling to realize that there is so much to learn and understand about logical reasoning. At the same time, it was great to see that it is very possible to gain that understanding and internalize it to develop a strong intuition for the test. Thanks so much J.Y. for the opportunity to participate in the Workshop!

#Overall Takeaways from the LR Crash Course

##Read everything slowly and carefully, even when you’re trying to go fast!

##To reiterate, DON’T RUSH!

##Grammar

##Logical Reasoning questions are very interrelated

###“Cookie Cutter Review”

##Cookie Cutter Answer Choice: Sole-Focus or Over-Focus on the Phenomenon

##Conditional logic

##Some and most relationships

##Key tasks for doing well on Reading Comprehension (RC) and Logical Reasoning (LR)

##Name or personify concepts that are abstract to gain a more concrete understanding of them.

##Practice ruthlessly eliminating all five answer choices

*Eliminate all the answers, then read the stimulus again and look for any details that you might have missed in your initial reading.

These notes certainly aren't all of what we talked about, but I hope you find some portion of them helpful for you in your continued studies!

In PT42.S2.Q15, there is an answer choice (A) that says "contains a premise that cannot possibly be true"

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) contains a premise that cannot be true

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-42-section-2-question-15/

This is not the correct answer choice in this question, but are there cases in which this answer choice can be correct? In other words, are there cases of flawed arguments in LSAT that contain premises that cannot be true (contradiction)?

It's a tough thing to do. All of the voices in my head (and there are lots!) tell me "just stick with it a few more seconds" or "if you're going to answer all the questions anyway, just do it now". Not to mention the time lapse one can easily undergo during a given question: "Oh my. It's been 3 minutes? It felt like 30 seconds". Employing a skipping strategy requires LOTS of discipline and practice. My goal is to skip a question without any anxiety. In fact, I want to skip with the same confidence I experience when answering a MBT in 30s. After all, we should be proud of a decisive skip. If you're not sure why this is the case, check out this 7Sage blog post https://classic.7sage.com/why-you-must-skip-questions-on-the-lsat/

Here is how I am overcoming this difficulty and establishing a 25 questions in 25m strategy.

I'm out of the CC and drilling the bundle. For LR, I am doing "timed" sections with a stopwatch to identify weaknesses which I'll eventually drill specifically. Because I'm using the bundle, I've seen almost all of these questions from the CC and performed detailed question analysis for any that gave me difficulty. So, I don't need to skip THAT many. Probably 3-5 per section. This allows me to dip my tow into the skipping strategy and build a foundation for it prior to PTing. It feels great to have 10 minutes to answer 5 questions (at the most) that I've read through and chose not to answer. That second read-through usually leads to the "click" which wasn't there during my first read and I finish questions in a minute or less. Then I even have time to review questions that I did answer but wasn't 100% on.

This approach is in its infancy, but I am feeling very comfortable with it. I am finding that I still have trouble skipping early questions because I feel like early questions shouldn't give me difficulty (fallacy) and I am not in a skipping rhythm. By halfway through the section, skipping is much more comfortable.

OK so those are my skipping training wheels. Maybe some of you are in a similar boat and find some use in this. Or maybe you've got your own style for skipping and would like to share. I'd love to hear about it.

One effective way that I discovered for myself to solve WEAKEN questions is the following: you have to set your mind in a way that can come to the argument's conclusion even without the provided premise(s). Or you can have the premise(s) and still not come to the conclusion provided in the argument. This way you basically do not attack the premise nor do you attack the conclusion. You agree with both parts of the argument. However, you show that both the premise(s) and the conclusion can exist without one another, e.i. you reach the conclusion without the provided premise(s), maybe by providing the conclusion where it does not requiter premise or you have the premise(s) but the conclusion may not actually happen. So in the LSAT world's WEAKEN region the premise(s) that the argument provide do not guarantee the conclusion. That's how you "damage" the support. Below is an example:

Argument: Because Mike likes rich life he works hard to make money.

P: Because Mike likes rich life

C: he works hard to make money

One way is to show that P happens but C still does not happen.

(A) Mike likes rich life but that fact does not motivate him to work (I know its a simple argument but you get the point)

Another way is to show that C happens without P.

(B) Mike works hard since he enjoys his job (he does not work hard for the sake of money).

Please share your thoughts!

Thank you 7Sage!

7Sage had Office Hours in my city, and I had the privilege to meet and talk to J.Y. in person! (perks of being one of the few 7Sagers in the city! :) )

I would like to share some of the advice I got from J.Y. about Reading Comprehension that might be helpful to some of you.

• Read for the structure

I'm sure 7Sagers already know this, and J.Y. stresses this point in videos too, but for RC, always you should **read for the structure**. J.Y. advised me that I should practice the following:

1) Have a **low-resolution summary** of each paragraph first and then think of a high-resolution summary second.

2) Find a **connection** between the paragraphs.

3) **Predict** what the author is going to say next.

Somehow it's harder to remember the structure and the main point when you first try to remember little details in the passage.

e.g.) Low resolution summary of S19 Passage 3

P1: Phenomenon; P2: Hypothesis 1 & the author's counter-argument; P3: Hypothesis 2 & the author's counter-argument;

P4: Hypothesis 3 & the author's counter-argument; P5: Hypothesis 4 & the author thinks this is most promising; P6: Mechanism of Hypothesis 4

• Dual Passages (A B Passage)

For dual passages in RC, J.Y. told me that we actually should read Passage A and answer the questions first and then read Passage B. There are questions which you can answer by just reading Passage A. Also, you can eliminate answer choices after reading Passage A, and after reading Passage B, you can choose among a few answer choices.

• YouTubing

When I told him that I sometimes freeze when I see scientific passages, J.Y. suggested that I should go YouTubing about an unfamiliar scientific topic in RC for just 30 minutes after every PT. I watched some clips about "latitudinal gradient" on YouTube for 30 minutes, and it was fun and educational!

I'm a low scorer (especially bad at RC) so I don't know if these pieces of advice apply to you, but I wanted to share these with you because I'm grateful for the opportunity of having met him :)

Hello all! I thought I'd share some tips on my personal approach to Flaw questions. I've really struggled with them in the past but I've done every single Flaw question from PT 1-35 so I think I have a good grasp on how they function. Some of this information may have already been stated in the past or covered in the CC but feel free to take what you need from it!

Hone in on the premise/conclusion relationship -- I circle key words in the premise/conclusion and quickly scan the answer choices for obvious eliminators (outside the scope of the argument, descriptively inaccurate, descriptively accurate but not the flaw, refers to contextual or other people's argument).

This process usually leaves me with two attractive answer choices, where I usually got stuck. I started to pick the one that I COULD NOT definitively prove wrong. The correct flaw answer choices are so abstract sometimes that I can't necessarily parse out what each part refers to during the timed test. So I just go for process of elimination. During BR, I definitively prove why it's right but trying to do so on the test can trap you into a time sink. Often, just moving on despite not being able to fully articulate in my head why it's the flaw precisely has been helpful. On the flip side, articulating why the second attractive answer choice is wrong (i.e. pointing to the specific word/phrase that's incorrect or cannot be definitively proven) has guided my POE process with more confidence.

Another thing that's really helped me is not to be locked in on my prephase before heading into the answer choices. In other words, just keeping an open mind. Even if you commit all of the 19 common flaws to memory (which I have), there isn't enough time during timed tests to actually think through all 19 and prephase. Instead, I ask myself an open-ended question that addresses the GAP in the reasoning --- i.e. What if X causes Y, and not the other way around? Wait what, how is X even relevant to Y? This helps me keep the general gap in my mind but not be so stubborn about my idealized answer choice. The LSAT can take that gap and do with it what it wants -- so it's harder to anticipate what they might try to get at. Instead, just having a general idea of where the hole is helps to stay focused when going through answer choices.

I think Flaw may arguably be one of the hardest question types, because it's so broad in scope. They can literally ask you anything because the flaws are so open-ended with so many variations. When you start developing a tunnel vision for the premise and conclusion relationship and STOP WASTING TIME on deliberating wrong answer choices, these can turn into that low-hanging coconut on the tree.

Hope this is somewhat helpful!

I am Completely stumped on this question. I am not sure if I am correctly negating the statement nor understanding the some relationship here

Stimulus Statement: "No laws has No Crimes", Because no laws can be broken.

Makes sense to me. However, I am confused with the Negate necessary rule being applied here since we are given two "No" Indicators.

How I would do this: Laws - Crime

Why? Since we are given a double negative. However,

How this is correctly diagramed is: /Laws - /Crimes

Why? Can some one explain that to me?

Also What do we do when we are given double (negate necessary or negate Sufficient conditions)

Now the negation aspect of this question. Since we are given a no statement and this is a must be true then,

How I would negate this no Statement is: A society has some laws and some crime.

However this is not correct, this is what answer choice (C) says "A society that has many laws has many crimes"

But my Second question then is WHY IS (D) Correct?? " A society has some crimes and some laws"

Thank you so much to anyone that can help

I had a quick question - based on the 7sage lessons on weakening, you never directly attack a premise or conclusion; rather, you take support away from the premise(s). So, a lot of trap answer choices will seem like they're attacking a premise when they're not.

However, is there ever a case where an answer choice DOES directly attack the premise? And if so, is it right?

I ask because I think I remember JY saying in a video (and i can't remember which - I was BR'ing an exam): "When answer choices seem to attack a premise, 9 times out of 10 they're not actually attacking the premise, it just looks like they are. For the 1 time out of 10 though, it's a great way to weaken an argument."

So, if it does actually attack the premise, it would be right, but it's highly unlikely that they would do that, so they're probably just trapping you?

Thanks guys!

Damn... I was doing PT23 S2 Q9, and have no idea to connect and translate the words.

If I were to look in the question bank, how do I separate the conditional logic LR questions from the other ones. I can't seem to find it in the categories.

It's hard for me to explain what my problem is, but I hope someone understands. It's not the logic I am having problems with, it's translating logic from words!!! After looking at the process and answer, I found that some words and statements were the different in the argument, and I treated them as same variables!

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, here is the logic translation text in order, with quotations, and answer process of question PT23 S2 Q9 :

ARGUMENT: Every action has consequences, and among the consequences of any action are other actions. And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good, but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible.

every action has a consequences

Action --> consequence (okay I got that part)

And among the consequences of any action are other actions

consequences --> action (what? How is "other actions" the same as "every action," it doesn't like they are talking about a different category)

And knowing whether an action is good requires knowing whether its consequences are good

Know if action good --> know if consequences are good (okay, got that part)

but we cannot know the future, so good actions are impossible

NOT knowing the future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible (Okay, I see how this we done)

Now the answer I was reading goes and chains the rest of the answer like this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

MY PROBLEM #1: I can't see how a contrapositive of Know if action good --> know if consequences are good can turn into NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good (this was done to chain up the statements, and I don't the how the heck these statements are the same).

MY PROBLEM #2: the answer chains up conclusion with a chain of three, and I don't understand how:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible

To me, that to me cuts into the other conditional statements.

How do these two statements below combine into one conditional chain? What rule allows this!?

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good

NOT know if future consequences good --> good actions are NOT possible

According to the answer, both statements above combine to this:

NOT know if future consequences good --> NOT know if good --> good actions are NOT possible?

Hey guys,

Had a 7Sager email me with a question that I thought you guys could help out with. Here it is:

I was wondering if you could tell me what the phrase "or else" means in logic sequencing games? For example, a rule given is "H is assembled on line 1 or else line 7"

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?