A question about sufficient assumption

Crack LSAT175

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?

NotMyName

No effective law is unenforceable.

Idea 1: Effective Law - EL
Idea 2: Unenforceable - /F
Conditional Indicator: No - Group 4

Whichever idea we place in the necessary condition will be negated. So we are left with two options:

EL -> F or /F -> /EL

Double negatives, several logical indicators, messy grammar: all of these tactics can be used to hide the meaning of any given sentence. I've found that since I started thoroughly diagramming EVERYTHING in BR and returning to the CC when I'm not sure, my intuition for Lawgic has improved.

BinghamtonDave

No effective law is unenforceable.
What this means is that every effective law is (not) unenforceable, meaning enforceable.
Effective law---->enforceable
If we find something in the world that is not enforceable (unenforceable i.e. a failure of the necessary condition) then we can say that it is not an effective law.

The lesson here is that the "no" applies to a negation of the necessary condition. Sometimes this means negating something to something positively stated.
"No birds are featherless"
If something is a bird then it is not featherless, which more succinctly put:
If bird then have feathers.
B---->F

I hope this helps
David