Regarding the negative assumption question.

[lathlee]

Dear Powerscore Employee/teachers

I have a question about confusing state of negating the statements for the sake of assumption questoins.

in 2016 version of pg 358-359 and 2011 version of pg 270.

The LOGICAL negation of Will is might not; which i get it ,100 % vs 0-99

But the problem is the presence tense and Past Tense Form's negation.

I do not understand some of the questions 's answer sheets and instructions regarding the present tense and past tense

Present tense: For Example, question 5 .. organic farming ...

shouldn't that the logical negation of this sentence should be Organic Farming might not be or might not have or probably not Promote instead of DO NOT PROMOTE. (Which is the answer sheet's answer)
cuz Might not have promoted or Might not Promote or Probably Not Promote means of 0-99 % where as do not have means of 0%.

5) organic farming method promotes . even though it is not clear it means 100% it is safe to assume 100% since the author wanted to make 1-100 %(some) , he could have said "Some Organic farming method promotes" which clearly indicates 1-100% percentage

Now regarding the past tense: For Example, examining question 3, the voting patters in .. CHANGED (100%)...

The CORRECT FORM OF NEGATION : might not had changed (0-99%) or probably did not change (0-99) instead of DID NOT CHANGE (0%) ? (Which is the answer sheet's answer)

The correct answer according to the answer sheet is did not change which indicates 0%. The original statement states the voting patterns in this precinct changed ,meaning of 100% statement. So therefore, shouldn't that be the correct answer states 0-99% possibility?

Thank you for the consideration,

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, lathlee. I would suggest not focusing too much on the "some" vs "all" issue unless the answer choice clearly makes use of those, or similar, terms. Keep it simple - if the answer choice says something did happen, negate it by saying that it did not happen. If it says that people are rational, negate it by saying they are not rational. There's no need to think about the implied "all" in those statements and then negate them with "not all". That's too much work!

If an answer choice uses those quantity-related terms, like never, all, everywhere, somebody, etc., then it becomes easy to negate with logical opposition: in order, those negations would be sometimes, not all, not everywhere, and nobody.

So, if an answer choice says "all dogs go to heaven", negate it by saying either "not all dogs go to heaven" or, if you prefer, "some dogs do not go to heaven". If an answer choice says "some microbes thrive in a highly acidic environment", negate by saying "no microbes thrive in a highly acidic environment".

Don't make it harder than it needs to be! Often the simplest way to negate an answer choice is by inserting or deleting the word "not".

I have one more trick that you can use for negation, especially when you are facing a particularly convoluted and confusing answer choice. Insert "It is not true that..." at the beginning of the answer choice. "It is not true that some microbes thrive in a highly acidic environment"; "it is not true that all dogs go to heaven"; etc. The goal of negation is to make the answer choice false, and adding this handy little phrase does that nicely and without much thought required.

Don't make too much work for yourself on these negations, lathlee. Even if you sometimes choose a polar opposite instead of a logical opposite, you should still get the same result every time - the correct answer, when negated, will wreck the argument.

Good luck!