Negation

hihihi9993 · October 2017

Can someone verify whether my conditional diagraming of the statement and its negation are correct? I get confused...

Not all hierarchical organizations operate in the same way: HO -> /Operate same way
Negation: HO -> Operate same way

Thank you in advance!

LSATcantwin · October 2017

This is incorrect.

Not all hierarchical organizations operate in the same way.

Not all - means anything less than 100%

If we have a line

None --------- Some ---------- All

"Not all' falls everywhere below the "All" point.

The way you translated it is;

HO -> /Operate
which reads;

"If you are a hierarchical organization THEN you do not operate the same way."

The above statement does not say this. It leaves room for some hierarchical organizations to operate the same way. Your translation does not.

Side note:
Be careful when you do the negation/contra positive

What you did above is just took the negative out which is incorrect. If you are doing a contra positive you need to change the negation AND switch the necessary/suff positions.

For instance you said:

HO -> /Operate

Contra; HO -> Operate.....this is incorrect.

The real contra positive would be; Operate -> /HO (see how the signs AND positions switch?)

hihihi9993 · October 2017

YesYes Thank you @LSATcantwin !
I was actually solving MBT question, and wanted to make sure I knew how to negate rather than doing the contrapositive.

Not all = Some !
I always forget that rule some how. Haha. Thank you so much for your help!

hihihi9993 · October 2017

So since we got [HO <-some-> Operate same]... How would you negate this...?

I know it is impossible to create contrapositive of some statements...
But can we negate it?

Some HO operate same =NEGATION=> All HO does not operate same?

LSATcantwin · October 2017

@d931n027h said:
So since we got [HO <-some-> Operate same]... How would you negate this...?

I know it is impossible to create contrapositive of some statements...
But can we negate it?

All you can really do is counter it by saying “no, All x do have y”

Not all people love cheese.

What are you talking about? ALL people love cheese...

thisissparta · October 2017

@LSATcantwin said:
This is incorrect.

Not all hierarchical organizations operate in the same way.

Not all - means anything less than 100%

If we have a line

None --------- Some ---------- All

"Not all' falls everywhere below the "All" point.

The way you translated it is;

HO -> /Operate
which reads;

"If you are a hierarchical organization THEN you do not operate the same way."

The above statement does not say this. It leaves room for some hierarchical organizations to operate the same way. Your translation does not.

Side note:
Be careful when you do the negation/contra positive

What you did above is just took the negative out which is incorrect. If you are doing a contra positive you need to change the negation AND switch the necessary/suff positions.

For instance you said:

HO -> /Operate

Contra; HO -> Operate.....this is incorrect.

The real contra positive would be; Operate -> /HO (see how the signs AND positions switch?)

What if HO --> /Operate in the same way is read as:
If you are a hierarchical organization, then you do not necessarily operate the same way?

Also, is "not all" mentioned in any of the logic lessons?

LSATcantwin · October 2017

@thisissparta said:

@LSATcantwin said:
This is incorrect.

Not all hierarchical organizations operate in the same way.

Not all - means anything less than 100%

If we have a line

None --------- Some ---------- All

"Not all' falls everywhere below the "All" point.

The way you translated it is;

HO -> /Operate
which reads;

"If you are a hierarchical organization THEN you do not operate the same way."

The above statement does not say this. It leaves room for some hierarchical organizations to operate the same way. Your translation does not.

Side note:
Be careful when you do the negation/contra positive

What you did above is just took the negative out which is incorrect. If you are doing a contra positive you need to change the negation AND switch the necessary/suff positions.

For instance you said:

HO -> /Operate

Contra; HO -> Operate.....this is incorrect.

The real contra positive would be; Operate -> /HO (see how the signs AND positions switch?)

What if HO --> /Operate in the same way is read as:
If you are a hierarchical organization, then you do not necessarily operate the same way?

Also, is "not all" mentioned in any of the logic lessons?

Haha that’s an interesting work around, but a for a conditional statement to be conditional it needs to have a sufficient and necessary.

If a cat is in the room, then I will sneeze.

CR -> S

/S -> /CR

By saying the necessary can possibly not happen when the sufficient is present destroys the relationship.

If there’s a cat in the room, I may or may not sneeze.

The cat in the room is no longer sufficient to make me sneeze. It’s now only possible that I might sneeze. Do you see what I mean?

If I recall the “advanced logic” section talks about this but I’m not 100% positive. I did it back in May.

thisissparta · October 2017

@LSATcantwin said:

@thisissparta said:

@LSATcantwin said:
This is incorrect.

Not all hierarchical organizations operate in the same way.

Not all - means anything less than 100%

If we have a line

None --------- Some ---------- All

"Not all' falls everywhere below the "All" point.

The way you translated it is;

HO -> /Operate
which reads;

"If you are a hierarchical organization THEN you do not operate the same way."

The above statement does not say this. It leaves room for some hierarchical organizations to operate the same way. Your translation does not.

Side note:
Be careful when you do the negation/contra positive

What you did above is just took the negative out which is incorrect. If you are doing a contra positive you need to change the negation AND switch the necessary/suff positions.

For instance you said:

HO -> /Operate

Contra; HO -> Operate.....this is incorrect.

The real contra positive would be; Operate -> /HO (see how the signs AND positions switch?)

What if HO --> /Operate in the same way is read as:
If you are a hierarchical organization, then you do not necessarily operate the same way?

Also, is "not all" mentioned in any of the logic lessons?

Haha that’s an interesting work around, but a for a conditional statement to be conditional it needs to have a sufficient and necessary.

If a cat is in the room, then I will sneeze.

CR -> S

/S -> /CR

By saying the necessary can possibly not happen when the sufficient is present destroys the relationship.

If there’s a cat in the room, I may or may not sneeze.

The cat in the room is no longer sufficient to make me sneeze. It’s now only possible that I might sneeze. Do you see what I mean?

If I recall the “advanced logic” section talks about this but I’m not 100% positive. I did it back in May.

HMMMM. So saying something is not necessarily the case defeats the purpose of the conditional statement?

In other words, not necessarily is different from necessarily not?

For example: if you like blue cheese, then you do not like apples.

BC --> /A

The right way to convert the lawgic statement to English is: If you like blue cheese, then you necessarily do not like apples.

That isn't the same as saying if you like blue cheese then you do not necessarily like apples.

Correct?

LSATcantwin · October 2017

@thisissparta said:

@LSATcantwin said:

@thisissparta said:

@LSATcantwin said:
This is incorrect.

Not all hierarchical organizations operate in the same way.

Not all - means anything less than 100%

If we have a line

None --------- Some ---------- All

"Not all' falls everywhere below the "All" point.

The way you translated it is;

HO -> /Operate
which reads;

"If you are a hierarchical organization THEN you do not operate the same way."

The above statement does not say this. It leaves room for some hierarchical organizations to operate the same way. Your translation does not.

Side note:
Be careful when you do the negation/contra positive

What you did above is just took the negative out which is incorrect. If you are doing a contra positive you need to change the negation AND switch the necessary/suff positions.

For instance you said:

HO -> /Operate

Contra; HO -> Operate.....this is incorrect.

The real contra positive would be; Operate -> /HO (see how the signs AND positions switch?)

What if HO --> /Operate in the same way is read as:
If you are a hierarchical organization, then you do not necessarily operate the same way?

Also, is "not all" mentioned in any of the logic lessons?

Haha that’s an interesting work around, but a for a conditional statement to be conditional it needs to have a sufficient and necessary.

If a cat is in the room, then I will sneeze.

CR -> S

/S -> /CR

By saying the necessary can possibly not happen when the sufficient is present destroys the relationship.

If there’s a cat in the room, I may or may not sneeze.

The cat in the room is no longer sufficient to make me sneeze. It’s now only possible that I might sneeze. Do you see what I mean?

If I recall the “advanced logic” section talks about this but I’m not 100% positive. I did it back in May.

HMMMM. So saying something is not necessarily the case defeats the purpose of the conditional statement?

In other words, not necessarily is different from necessarily not?

For example: if you like blue cheese, then you do not like apples.

BC --> /A

The right way to convert the lawgic statement to English is: If you like blue cheese, then you necessarily do not like apples.

That isn't the same as saying if you like blue cheese then you do not necessarily like apples.

Correct?

Yep because the second statement is no longer a condition.

In the first example if I like blue cheese then I MUST like apples.

In the second one if I like blue cheese then I may or may not like apples.

The condition that forces me into liking apples is no longer met.

It’s actually kinda funny the word you are using to describe it!

“Not necessarily” you are taking the necessity out of it. You are destroying the necessary condition!

thisissparta · October 2017

@LSATcantwin said:

@thisissparta said:

@LSATcantwin said:

@thisissparta said:

@LSATcantwin said:
This is incorrect.

Not all hierarchical organizations operate in the same way.

Not all - means anything less than 100%

If we have a line

None --------- Some ---------- All

"Not all' falls everywhere below the "All" point.

The way you translated it is;

HO -> /Operate
which reads;

"If you are a hierarchical organization THEN you do not operate the same way."

The above statement does not say this. It leaves room for some hierarchical organizations to operate the same way. Your translation does not.

Side note:
Be careful when you do the negation/contra positive

What you did above is just took the negative out which is incorrect. If you are doing a contra positive you need to change the negation AND switch the necessary/suff positions.

For instance you said:

HO -> /Operate

Contra; HO -> Operate.....this is incorrect.

The real contra positive would be; Operate -> /HO (see how the signs AND positions switch?)

What if HO --> /Operate in the same way is read as:
If you are a hierarchical organization, then you do not necessarily operate the same way?

Also, is "not all" mentioned in any of the logic lessons?

Haha that’s an interesting work around, but a for a conditional statement to be conditional it needs to have a sufficient and necessary.

If a cat is in the room, then I will sneeze.

CR -> S

/S -> /CR

By saying the necessary can possibly not happen when the sufficient is present destroys the relationship.

If there’s a cat in the room, I may or may not sneeze.

The cat in the room is no longer sufficient to make me sneeze. It’s now only possible that I might sneeze. Do you see what I mean?

If I recall the “advanced logic” section talks about this but I’m not 100% positive. I did it back in May.

HMMMM. So saying something is not necessarily the case defeats the purpose of the conditional statement?

In other words, not necessarily is different from necessarily not?

For example: if you like blue cheese, then you do not like apples.

BC --> /A

The right way to convert the lawgic statement to English is: If you like blue cheese, then you necessarily do not like apples.

That isn't the same as saying if you like blue cheese then you do not necessarily like apples.

Correct?

Yep because the second statement is no longer a condition.

In the first example if I like blue cheese then I MUST like apples.

In the second one if I like blue cheese then I may or may not like apples.

The condition that forces me into liking apples is no longer met.

It’s actually kinda funny the word you are using to describe it!

“Not necessarily” you are taking the necessity out of it. You are destroying the necessary condition!

I knew I was trippin' myself... LOL just couldn't pin-point where.
Thanks! You is a genius.

hihihi9993 · October 2017

@LSATcantwin said:

@d931n027h said:
So since we got [HO <-some-> Operate same]... How would you negate this...?

I know it is impossible to create contrapositive of some statements...
But can we negate it?

All you can really do is counter it by saying “no, All x do have y”

Not all people love cheese.

What are you talking about? ALL people love cheese...

Thank you so much for your help @LSATcantwin !!!!!!

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Related Discussions

Negation

Negation Help !Some A's are not B's A's -----> not B 's (some) What if I want to negate some A's are not B's? would the negation be .... …

Negation of a statement with "most" and "conditional statements"I am having a difficult time figuring out how to negate a sentence that is comprised of both "most" and "conditional statements." For example, if …

Logical negationThe logical negation of "At least some rhinoceroses whose horns are periodically trimmed off will be able to attract mates," is "none of the rhinocer…

Statement NegationAn answer choice reads: "A totalitarian regime can perceive loss of public passivity as a threat to its power." How would you go about negating…

Another Statement NegationStatement reads: "Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year." How would you negate this? Is is better to use one statement that says "Rattlesnakes …

Comments