Nothing

mt10087

Is there a clean way to diagram 'nothing' in LR using LAWGIC?

akistotle

Can you give us examples? I believe it would be Group 4 Translation.

mt10087

Just found an example that finally captures my problem: No one (Nothing) has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.

Do you start with the verb? Why don't the negatives cancel out for the meaning of the sentence to be "these things are harmful"?

Also, is there a way to get a handle on the word 'against'?

Sorry to throw so many questions your way!

OlamHafuch

Just because no one has been able to show that they do not harm tire tread does not mean they are harmful.

NovLSAT2019

No one has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.

1) no one has been able to show
2) these do not harm tire tread

(no) [one has been able to show] that [these do not harm tire tread]

(no) = group 4

"negate + necessary"

[one has been able to "show"] --> not[these "do not harm" tire tread]

[show] --> not[do not harm]

cancel the negatives

[show] --> [do harm]

one has been able to show --> these do harm tire tread

At least one has been able to show that these do harm tire tread.

I think there's a difference between "these things are harmful" and "show that these do harm tire tread". Maybe the harm itself is negligent to the overall well-being of the tire tread, therefore, you can't really conclude that these things are harmful. Like harmful to which extent you know?

NovLSAT2019

This is the conclusion of the stimulus in 26-3-10 (flaw question). I just came across this while working on the problem sets lol. Here’s the whole stimulus.

“Tires may be either underinflated, overinflated, or neither. We are pretty safe in assuming that underinflation or over inflation of tires harms their tread. After all, no one has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.”

mt10087

Thank you! Unfortunately, I am still confused if folks see this!