Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

who_ate_my_cake
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:17 pm

Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby who_ate_my_cake » Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:41 pm

TCR in my own words: A person cannot [...] unless such-and-such state of affairs.


What is the best way to negate this statement? I tried "it is not the case that if a person can, then such-and-such state of affairs," but maybe there are better/easier ways to go about his. Advice?

Want_My_Life_Back
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:36 am

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby Want_My_Life_Back » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:06 am

With "unless" statements you can just negate the sufficient clause to make it easier to read. If a person can [...] then such-and-such state of affairs. So the proper negation of this would be If not such-and-such state of affairs then a person cannot.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby suspicious android » Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:09 pm

Well, you can negate any sentence by putting "it's not the case" in front of it, but I think for most any complex statement that becomes more confusing than helpful. Another option is just converting it into an "if/then" statement, then negating it:

If a person can XYZ, then PQR.

The negation of this would be "even if a person can XYZ, not necessarily PQR". Note that the proper negation of a conditional statement is not another conditional statement. To negate any conditional statement you need to show that the sufficient condition can exist without the necessary condition.

User avatar
tehrocstar
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:12 am

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby tehrocstar » Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:02 pm

The quick and dirty would be to negate the phrase before and after "unless" at the same time and move on.

Given that phrases like "unless" are logically equivalent to "if not," you can begin by substituting that word and reversing the sufficient and negative conditions. But instead of reversing the order of the sufficient and necessary, it's preferable to just negate the sufficient.

To negate a conditional statement in general, you need to negate the necessary condition, thus.

Original statement modified to a conditional statement

Original:
A person cannot, unless such-and-such state of affairs

After modification and substituting unless:
(If a person can, then such and such state of affairs)

Finally negating the conditional:
If a person can, then not such and such state of affairs

I would imagine that you wouldn't run into this scenario too often though.

Attorney at Play
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 3:22 am

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby Attorney at Play » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:52 pm

A person cannot [...] unless such-and-such state of affairs.

NEGATED: A person can [...] without such-and-such state of affairs.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but that just seems like the easiest and most intuitive way of comprehending it.

User avatar
tehrocstar
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:12 am

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby tehrocstar » Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:58 pm

Attorney at Play wrote:A person cannot [...] unless such-and-such state of affairs.

NEGATED: A person can [...] without such-and-such state of affairs.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but that just seems like the easiest and most intuitive way of comprehending it.


Without and unless are logically equivalent, thus your answer is incomplete.

uchi15hopeful
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:55 pm

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby uchi15hopeful » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:06 pm

It has been answered correctly in this thread:

A person cannot [...] unless such-and-such state of affairs = Not A unless B

Not B -> Not A; Contrapositive: A -> B

Done and done.

Edit: My bad, I thought we were diagramming.
Last edited by uchi15hopeful on Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Attorney at Play
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 3:22 am

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby Attorney at Play » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:52 pm

tehrocstar wrote:
Attorney at Play wrote:A person cannot [...] unless such-and-such state of affairs.

NEGATED: A person can [...] without such-and-such state of affairs.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but that just seems like the easiest and most intuitive way of comprehending it.


Without and unless are logically equivalent, thus your answer is incomplete.




Why is it incomplete? I used without to make it easier to understand. Right, its logical equivalence makes it the same as unless. However, cannot is changed to can.

So where the original statement is 'You cannot blank without blank.' The negation would be 'You can blank without blank.'

jamesireland
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:52 pm

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby jamesireland » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:04 pm

tehrocstar wrote:The quick and dirty would be to negate the phrase before and after "unless" at the same time and move on.

Given that phrases like "unless" are logically equivalent to "if not," you can begin by substituting that word and reversing the sufficient and negative conditions. But instead of reversing the order of the sufficient and necessary, it's preferable to just negate the sufficient.

To negate a conditional statement in general, you need to negate the necessary condition, thus.

Original statement modified to a conditional statement

Original:
A person cannot, unless such-and-such state of affairs

After modification and substituting unless:
(If a person can, then such and such state of affairs)

Finally negating the conditional:
If a person can, then not such and such state of affairs

I would imagine that you wouldn't run into this scenario too often though.


This is not quite right. As suspicious android correctly points out, the negation of a conditional is not another conditional. The negation of 'If A then B' is 'A and not-B'.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby suspicious android » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:59 am

I really cannot get enough of these threads.

User avatar
tehrocstar
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:12 am

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby tehrocstar » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:18 am

Yep, you're right jamesireland, thanks

who_ate_my_cake
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:17 pm

Re: Negate this necessary assumption: PT8, LR1, Q6, TCR (C)

Postby who_ate_my_cake » Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:00 pm

suspicious android wrote:
If a person can XYZ, then PQR.

The negation of this would be "even if a person can XYZ, not necessarily PQR". Note that the proper negation of a conditional statement is not another conditional statement. To negate any conditional statement you need to show that the sufficient condition can exist without the necessary condition.


Thanks, this is very useful. Definitely easier than "It is not the case that..." I appreciate that.

Also, thanks to everyone who replied




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests