Translating a sentence with 2 group 4 indicators

Comments

• 1 Like

  NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  April 2017 5320 karma

  /F --> /E
  You're a friendly person unless you're not exciting.
  No unfriendly person is exciting
  Without being exciting, you cannot be friendly

  This is fun lol who else can add to the list? (an correct mine if they're wrong)
• 1 Like

  NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  April 2017 5320 karma

  This is what my Saturdays have come to. I guess it's a badge of honor.
• 2 Likes

  Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  April 2017 10806 karma

  @akeegs92 said:
  I have been trying to master my lawgic to English translations and need some help here.

  Working on: /F --> /E

  I want to say: No friendly person is not exciting.

  But when I read this, it does not sound correct. If I try using a group 4 translation to bring it back to logic, it doesn't seem like it would work out. Any idea if I'm on the right track here? Thanks in advance!!!

  Well "no" is a group 4 indicator like you said and group 4 means you have to negate the necessary condition. The necessary condition in "No friendly person is not exciting" is "not exciting". If you negate the necessary it can be written as "not not exciting". The two negatives "not not" cancel each other out and it basically translates to "exciting".

  F---->E
  Which would read as: if a person is friendly, they are exciting.

  I hope this helps.
• TexAgAaron Alum Member

  April 2017 1723 karma

  Thanks @jkatz1488 and @Sami ! I guess this leads me to another question, is "not" a part of group 4? I put that down in my notes early on but now I'm second guessing that.
• 1 Like

  Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  April 2017 10806 karma

  @akeegs92
  It should as long as it functions as a group 4 indicator. In your above sentence its not the word "not" that determines if we should "negate the necessary", but the word "no" - which is right before the word friendly. "No" is a group 4 indicator.
• TexAgAaron Alum Member

  April 2017 1723 karma

  Ok that makes sense. So it just depends on the sentence structure and whether or not there is any emphasis placed on it as the main negation. Thanks!
• 1 Like

  Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  April 2017 10806 karma

  @jkatz1488 said:

  Without being exciting, you cannot be friendly

  Hey so "without" is a group 3 indicator word, so this should read : Not exciting then you cannot be friendly. In other words: If you are friendly then you are exciting.
  I think you were trying to write multiple ways of saying /F ---> /E. If that's the case I think you made a mistake . Everything else looked good : )
• TexAgAaron Alum Member

  April 2017 1723 karma

  @jkatz1488 Wouldn't the 3rd one you listed be backwards?

  "Without (Group 3) being exciting, you cannot (Group 4) be friendly."

  Using Group 3 translation: /E -->/F
  Using Group 4 translation: /E -->/F

  The other 2 come out to be: E --> F when I use group 3 or 4
• 1 Like

  NotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐

  April 2017 5320 karma

  Wouldn't the 3rd one you listed be backwards?

  Yup you're right! thanks for pointing that out
• Butterflies and Lady Birds Alum Member

  March 2019 143 karma

  @Sami I am dealing with the same issue: I just need to reaffirm something. In the sentence.

  If you cannot swim you are not a Koala Bear. - cannot group 4 indicator and not- is a negative for Koala. In Lawgic it would be S then K right? Thanks in advance.
• Sami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  March 2019 edited March 2019 10806 karma

  @Maka_Ogn said:
  @Sami I am dealing with the same issue: I just need to reaffirm something. In the sentence.

  If you cannot swim you are not a Koala Bear. - cannot group 4 indicator and not- is a negative for Koala. In Lawgic it would be S then K right? Thanks in advance.

  Hey!!!

  So try not LSAT it. Just try to understand what it means and I think you will see its actually very easy and a lot of fog will be lifted. Forget about group 4. Just ask, what does the sentence say? The sentence above means: If a set of things cannot swim, then Koala bear is not in that set.

  I am confident you can understand what this sentence is saying, but because you tried to substitute conditional logic for just reading for understanding, it ended up being that you couldn't understand it. Logic is a helpful tool for reading, but it cannot replace your reading.

  In response to your question about "S then K", there are more things that can swim other than koala bear, like sharks.