Hello. I'm going over the core curriculum and JY tells us in order to negate "all" statements like "A -> B," you make it to "A <-some-> /B." However, in the next lesson, he tells us when you negate "conditional" statements like "A -> B," you negate it to "A and /B." My question is how do we differentiate between the two? Isn't an "all" statement the same as a "conditional" statement? If I say "all dogs are friendly," that is surely an "all" statement and diagramed as the conditional statement "dog -> friendly." Thus, I do not see the difference between the two.
LuigiGranata
- Joined
- Aug 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
Goal score: 180
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2026
Discussions
I saw an explanation that said A -> B and A-some-> C = can conclude C -some-> B. Why is that and where can I find lessons on these types of conditionals?
LuigiGranata
Monday, Nov 17 2025
So if you didn't know what temperate zones were, you wouldn't be able to get this question right?
@amyalley413 so there’s no difference between “A -some-> /B and “A and /B” in terms of negating the statement “A -> B” when it comes to necessary assumption questions only?