Necessary Condition Negation

Purrrrisprudence

help

I was wondering if anyone could provide/explain the general set of rules for this statement: Nothing that one should have desired in the first place fails to be a pleasure.

Nothing that one should have desired in the first place
P: Fails to be a pleasure

JY wrote the statements like so (/D -> P), but I was wondering if someone could help explain? I am confused why only one of the statements is negated.

JustDoIt

I believe it is D --> P (I could be wrong but let me explain).

The statement is: Nothing that one should have desired in the first place fails to be a pleasure.

Group 4 indicates that we would we negate the necessary condition. So we end up with D -> //P. Why are there two slashes? Great question! Failing to be a pleasure means that we have /P. But since this is negate-necessary, that means we have //P. And since there are two slashes, it becomes a positive (P). As such, we are left with D -> P. Again, I could be wrong but this is how I see it. Hope this helps!