Conditional logic?

artichoke_love-1

How would y'all translate this into "lawgic":

"He's nothing if not lazy" ??

mckpatts

/lazy ----> /him
him ----> lazy.

__Eugene__

I've never had to translate something like this into lawgic before, but it seems like what this is really saying is "his qualities include laziness." so H --> L. H for him, L for lazy. "He" is a sufficient condition for lazy. And contrapositive /l --> h/ if laziness isn't a quality, its not him.

jpgreenstein

If hes not lazy, its not him. If it is him, hes lazy

noonawoon

Did you see this on an actual LSAT? I'm not sure how well this translates because it's an expression and not meant to be taken literally. I don't really think it is using conditional logic

The "nothing if not" expression is understood to denote "decidedly and unmistakably"

He is decidedly and unmistakably lazy. He is definitively lazy. There isn't really an "if he xyz, he is lazy"

artichoke_love-1

Got it thanks guys! I didn't see this on an actual LSAT no worries; I'm just not a native English speaker and had no idea what this meant (worried I might see it on the LSAT and not know what to do with it)