Diagramming NO and Understanding Context

gregc456

Hello All,

I had a question regarding whether or not to negate "NO" in the translations section and how that works. Below, I have highlighted why I am unsure about this. I have recently started the course so if this is something that is touched on later, I have yet to reach that point.

---

Group 3 Translations 3 with Answers.

Question 4
"Without brown being present [BP], NO new large store can be attracted to the downtown area[NLSA}"

My answer
/BP--->NLSA
/NLSA--->BP

JY Answer
/BP--->/NLSA
NLSA--->BP

In JY's answer, he negated the sentence that included NO. However, in the previous section, he did not and I was confused as to whether that was a preference or following a rule.

---

Group 3 Translations 2 with Answers
“Until there is NO shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe (100% safe), it makes sense to situate them where they pose the least threat to the public (SLT)”

My Answer
100% safe—>SLT
/SLT—>/100%

JY’s Answer
/100% safe–>SLT
/SLT–>100% safe

For this question, it was explained to me by another Sager that you have to understand the context of when NO is used, which is why this was not negated.

---

Question 5
“Unless something is done about the alcohol problem at this university (DSA), I’ll have to transfer to a university where there are NO fraternities (TU)”

My Answer
/DSA—>/TU
TU—>DSA

JY’s Answer
/DSA—>TU
/TU—>DSA

For myself, if it was read as "I'll have to transfer to a university where there are fraternities (TU)," I can understand why it is not negated. But with the NO included, intuitively I assume it should be negated since you are stating the opposite. Semantics of course are crucial but is there any rule of thumb that can help with discerning when to negate or not?

Thank you in Advance

BinghamtonDave

The proper translation for the first example is as follows:
If Brown——>New Store’

The second example is a bit more difficult. The sufficiency condition rests on our proper understanding of what it means to have “no shred of a doubt.”
If one has “no shred of a doubt” about something that means that someone is 100% certain about it. We are putting a negation on that term via the conditional operator “until.”
So what we are left with is:
100% certain----->SLT

Remember for your third question what it is the “no” applies to: it does not apply to “transfer” it applies to “fraternities." So what we have here is this:

Done about alcohol------> Transfer to University fraternity

Because English is a natural language, I do not believe there are any absolute follow 100% of the time rules for these tricky situations where a no might be essentially modifying a certain part of the sentence. We sometimes (rarely) have to take the sentence for what it means. There are grammar lessons in the core curriculum, several on 7Sage have also recommended Youtube searches for grammar videos etc. Parsing the sentences for proper negation is tough work, but we can seek solace in 2 facts:
1.It can be mastered via practice
2.The toughest of the tough parsing of grammar is not all that common on LR sections. The parsing of grammar we must do on the LSAT is normally a bit easier than the questions from the CC you highlighted.

I hope this helps
David

BinghamtonDave

I should amend slightly what I wrote for #2 above: grammar on the LSAT is one of a handful of skills that are absolutely crucial in my estimation to a great score. I in no way want to down play that. But the act of actually taking a step back and thinking about what a term like "no shred of a doubt" means, is something a bit more rare on the LSAT in my experience.

gregc456

Thank you Dave, appreciate the feedback.