#24 - One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet

[powerguy]

I am hard time trying to decode this Two year olds naturally do not dislike salty food so much that they wouldnt choose it over other foods.

Does it mean that "Two year olds naturally like salty food so much that they wouldn't choose it over other foods?

How should I handle such double/triple negations?

Really confused.

Thanks

[Nikki Siclunov]

That's exactly right: two negatives make a positive; however, be aware of the context and any dependent clauses that hinge on the double negative.

The correct way to interpret the sentence you mentioned is:

Two-year-olds naturally like salty food so much that they wouldn't choose other food over salty food.

The logical opposite would be:

Two-year-olds naturally dislike salty food so much that they wouldn't choose it over other foods.

I'm with you on that one: this is one lousy sentence. But its logical opposite is easier to understand (just take away the "not") and it is clear that, if true, that would only strengthen the argument. If two-year-olds naturally dislike salty food, but the researchers got them to eat the salty food over the sweet food, then a young child's preferences can be affected by the type of food s/he is exposed to.

By the same logic, the opposite of (A) weakens the argument, proving that (A) is the correct assumption. If two-year-olds do naturally prefer salty food to sweet food, then the choice made could be a function of an alternate cause (natural preference among two-year-olds), and not exposure to a particular type of food. Answer choice (A) defends the argument against the possibility of an alternate explanation for phenomenon described, and is therefore the correct Defender Assumption.

Let me know if this helps!

[powerguy]

Nikki -

Thanks for your post. Such double negatives really kill me. Let me come up with an example to see whether I have grasped this concept.

Example :The price of the ticket from Waterloo to Toronto did not increase to an extent that people didn't continue to take the flights.

In my opinion, the positive version would be :

The price of the ticket W to T decreased to an extent that people continued taking the flights.

Do you think that this is correct?

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Hey Powerguy,

Interesting discussion! With that one, your positive version is almost exactly right; I would change it slightly, as follows:

The price of the ticket from W to T remained sufficiently low for people to continue taking flights.

The subtle change is that the version above still allows for some increase in price--just not such a great increase that people stopped taking the flights.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know whether it's clear--thanks!

~Steve

[powerguy]

Thanks Steve. I came up with another double negation just to practice. These really kill me.

"I didn't hate Charlie Sheen to an extent that I wouldn't watch his show."

I liked Charlie Sheen to an extent that I would watch his show. (meaningwise - this sounds a bit odd--- essentially because - I liked charlie so that I would watch the show? no. My original intention was not such. Something is fishy.)

Can you please help me?

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. Interesting example--probably a common sentiment.

"I didn't hate Charlie Sheen so much that I wouldn't watch his show."

When you say that, you're basically saying that your distaste for Charlie Sheen wasn't so great that your dislike would have kept you from watching the show.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know whether everything's clear--thanks!

~Steve

[powerguy]

Thanks Steve -- but what would be the +ve version of the above Charlie Sheen sentence?

Is this correct? "I hated Charlie sheen to an extent that I would watch his show"?

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, when you say the "+ve version," are you asking how else you might make that same statement, or are you asking for the negated version (basically the opposite) of the statement?

Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[powerguy]

yes, +ve version as in without using "don't hate" and "wouldn't watch"....i.e. without using the "not"s....

Can you please help me?

[Steve Stein]

I lack a hatred for Sheen that would be sufficient to keep me from watching his show.

Let me know whether that's clear--thanks!

~Steve