Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

A question about sufficient assumption

Crack LSAT175Crack LSAT175 Alum Member
in Logical Reasoning 43 karma

There is a really tough and confused question I have: IS No effective law(A) is unenforceable(B) = All enforceable laws(-B) are effective(-A) RIGHT?

Due to the first sentence is a double negative one, should I reverses it directly like -B→-A? Then it becomes like that: Enforceable is effective law and it is the same as the sentence in my question.

However, if I change the double negative sentence to an affirmative one, then it becomes: Effective law is enforceable. Then reverses it: Unenforceable is not effective law, which is not the same as the sentence in my question.

I have no idea which one is correct, should I change the double negative sentence first? Or should I reverse the double negative sentence directly?

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • NotMyNameNotMyName Alum Member Sage ⭐
    5320 karma

    No effective law is unenforceable.

    Idea 1: Effective Law - EL
    Idea 2: Unenforceable - /F
    Conditional Indicator: No - Group 4

    Whichever idea we place in the necessary condition will be negated. So we are left with two options:

    EL -> F or /F -> /EL

    Double negatives, several logical indicators, messy grammar: all of these tactics can be used to hide the meaning of any given sentence. I've found that since I started thoroughly diagramming EVERYTHING in BR and returning to the CC when I'm not sure, my intuition for Lawgic has improved.

  • BinghamtonDaveBinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
    8716 karma

    No effective law is unenforceable.
    What this means is that every effective law is (not) unenforceable, meaning enforceable.
    Effective law---->enforceable
    If we find something in the world that is not enforceable (unenforceable i.e. a failure of the necessary condition) then we can say that it is not an effective law.

    The lesson here is that the "no" applies to a negation of the necessary condition. Sometimes this means negating something to something positively stated.
    "No birds are featherless"
    If something is a bird then it is not featherless, which more succinctly put:
    If bird then have feathers.
    B---->F

    I hope this helps
    David

Sign In or Register to comment.