Language: Negative, Double Negatives, and Triple Negatives

[jupiterlaw]

In the triple-negative example, if this were part of a whole stimulus would we be told that all members must vote or should this be assumed for questions regarding voting – although I don't believe this would be common sense since it is possible to abstain from votes.

I know I am bringing in outside knowledge with the abstaining point, but that aside even if not assuming that, this example doesn't give any information about whether every has to vote or if people can abstain (unless when it is mentioned that, "...since all members must vote..." would have been included in the stimulus in a real LSAT question).

Is this just because it is not a full stimulus and only used to demonstrate the triple-negative or am I missing something here?

[jupiterlaw]

from LRB 2023 pg. 136

- I also wanted to add I'm confused why "not" and "inhibit" in the other example, "Beta cryptoxanthin is not listed among the compounds that do not inhibit neurogenesis" offset the meaning to "...possibly inhibits..." but the previous example with Dr. Smith, "not", "against", and "ban" offset the meaning to "voting for the ban".

I'm confused why the negatives in the Dr. Smith example offset to a strong meaning but the negatives in the Beta cryptoxanthin example offset to a less strong meaning (possibly).

[jupiterlaw]

Figured this out – I missed the first part of the sentence where it said everyone must vote