Why is this different from negating "all" claims in the previous section? I thought "all" was an indicator of a sufficient condition, so "All A are B" = A --> B, which is the same as "If A then B"
(i.e. "All cats are mammals" is the same as "If one is a cat, then they are a mammal")
6
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
Why is this different from negating "all" claims in the previous section? I thought "all" was an indicator of a sufficient condition, so "All A are B" = A --> B, which is the same as "If A then B"
(i.e. "All cats are mammals" is the same as "If one is a cat, then they are a mammal")