Help with Logical Negation in Convoluted AC's

[rob_D]

Hi Powerscore team,

Lately I have been drilling difficult assumption questions, which often have answer choices that are more convoluted. As such, I am having a hard time finding where to "place" the logical negation in some cases. Could you help clarify?

I understand the concept of logical (not polar) negation well, but I find that some of the questions themselves are more complex in practice. Taking the example given on page 335 of the LR Bible: "The congressman always votes for gun control" and "The congressman does not always vote for gun control," the negation comes before the verb, or action---as I believe it was described in the book. Will the negation always go hand in hand with the "action" of the sentence?

I don't know if I can post LSAC material, so I will reference an instance that I am thinking about, question 3 of PT5-S1, regarding the Mayor of Plainsville. In this question, I am confused as to how to negate the correct answer, B. Would it be that he/she [the mayor] does 'not accept' that [...], or would it be that he/she [the mayor] accepts a new biz park would 'not bring' in more [...].

There are a few others like this that have stumped me but this was one that I think portrays my struggle that I could find quickly. In this question, I was able to eliminate most wrong AC's, but left to two contenders, I was really unsure and the neg test only paralyzed me.

Did I miss something in the Bible? Or is this just a rare question and process of elimination is kind of the best bet way to work around it? I am struggling to dismantle convoluted AC's and where to place the negation.

Any advice or insight is appreciated!

Rob

[rob_D]

Bump

Okay I just reread the chapter and saw "The logical opposite will require the least amount of ‘work’ to negate the original statement" (LR Bible 336). I feel like I am getting warmer but can't fully flesh this idea out. Am I on the right track?

Thanks,
Rob

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hey Rob,

You're on the right track for sure. In most instances, arriving at the logical opposite simply requires you to negate the verb of the main clause (not the subsidiary clause) in the sentence. In the example given (Plainsville), the logical opposite of answer choice (B) would be, "The mayor does not accept that a new business park would bring in..." If that were true, it would weaken the citizen's conclusion that the mayor has ulterior motives for advocating the construction of a new highway. Maybe the mayor simply does not realize, know, or accept the fact that there is a better way to help businesses?

In a few instances, the logical opposite will require us to negate a numerical modifier. For instance:

Some pencils are blue No pencils are blue

A few students attended the seminar No student attended the seminar

but see this:

Few students attended the seminar More than a few (i.e. not just a few) students attended the seminar

(there is a substantive difference between "few," i.e. "not too many" and "a few," i.e. "some")

When the claim you're negating contains conditional reasoning, you need to negate the necessity of the necessary condition:

Only those who take the LSAT can apply to law school Those who take the LSAT are not the only ones who can apply to law school (i.e. taking the LSAT is not necessary for applying to law school)

There is no success without sacrifice There is success without sacrifice, i.e sacrifice is not necessary for success

You cannot go to France unless you fly You can go to France even without flying

Does this make sense? Let me know.

Thanks!

[rob_D]

Hey Nikki,

That definitely helps. Looking at it in terms of clauses makes a lot of sense now. Thanks for clarifying.

Regards,
Rob