What does "no" mean in disagreements?

hotranchsauce

So yea, I feel silly asking such a question lol.

But what does "no" mean in it's function as a response to another person's argument?

For example, in a disagreement question:

Person 1: A, therefore B. (insert whatever you want for A and B. Make the argument valid or invalid, whatever)

Person 2: No. (rest of stimulus).

So, if I were to read all of Person 1's argument, and then only read the "No." from Person 2's argument, how should I interpret that?

Does "no" ONLY mean that B does not follow from A, in which case B could still be true, you just can't arrive @ B from ONLY A?

Does/could "no" mean that there is a simply a disagreement about context and that B actually does follow from A?

I'm only interested in the function of no within the scope of how the LSAT generally uses this word in disagreement questions.

Thanks!

Alissalee

Hi, it's not a silly question at all. The "no" in the front of the second person's stimulus is just an indicator that they disagree with SOMETHING that the other person said. It could be the premise or it could be the conclusion. More frequently, it's the conclusion.

My advice when you see this in a disagreement question is that you note in your head all the possibilities it could be from the first person that the second disagrees with and then narrow it as you finish reading the second person's stimulus.

hotranchsauce

@Alissalee said:
Hi, it's not a silly question at all. The "no" in the front of the second person's stimulus is just an indicator that they disagree with SOMETHING that the other person said. It could be the premise or it could be the conclusion. More frequently, it's the conclusion.

My advice when you see this in a disagreement question is that you note in your head all the possibilities it could be from the first person that the second disagrees with and then narrow it as you finish reading the second person's stimulus.

Ok, great. Got it.

Thanks for the explanation and also the advice.