@AnnieCastillo remember group 4 indicators:

"No" would mean you have to negate a concept and make that concept the necessary condition. So "no unicorns poop rainbows" is equivalent to U->/PR.

/U->PR is the same as saying "if one is not a unicorn, then one poops rainbows.," which doesn't follow from the claim because we don't know anything about non-unicorns.

@EmmaHulbert The sentence “No one can be worthy of power without being pure of heart” can be broken up into 2 concepts:

1. Being worthy of power

2. Being pure of heart

By assigning symbols to each, it becomes:

1. /worthy of power (in English: “it is not the case that one can be worthy of power.)

2. pure of heart 

“Without” is a Group 3 indicator. So we have to negate one of the concepts and make that concept the sufficient condition. Doing this, we get the sentence is Lawgic as:

/pure of heart → /worthy of power

OR

worthy of power → pure of heart

Translating this back to English, we can either say: 1) if one is not pure of heart, then one is not worthy of power, or 2) if one is worthy of power, then one is pure of heart.

I'd say that the confusing part is the wording of the first concept. The "no" in the beginning of the sentence negates the following clause. So it becomes "/one can be worthy of power."

It makes it easy to keep the concepts relatively simple - the concept of being worthy of power and the concept of being pure of heart.

Hope this makes sense!