Unique case of conditional reasoning indicator puzzles

[lathlee]

Dear Admin and Lsat logic book authors,

As Far as I know, the indicator; No, None, Never, usually produce conditional reasoning statement.

This is somewhat puzzling : In 2016 Logic bible book sets and Lsat bible lessons 1-12, there is a drill sets that when a sentence is decorated by the conditioner of NO, it is a sufficient conditioner indicator and necessary conditioner is indicated.

But you guys never listed word of No in one of the conditional relationship indicator even though you guys are aware of the possibility NO can create conditional relationship.

as in No child is left behind: Child (Negation) left behind

as in None of your paper is Good: Paper Your (Negation) Good.

I will never beat Seto Kaiba in a duel. Duel I (Negation) Beat Seto Kaiba

I know as stated in Lsat bible book, No peace without Justice is Peace Justice as in the presence of No is deleted. I know this is truth as well. How come you guys do not address these issues.

I am wondering how come LSAT bible books did not bother to address these issues.

[lathlee]

There is no proof of anything except this guy is a sensational athletic. - Quote from Jerry Maguire

Proof nothing (negation of anything) except this guy is a sensational athletic.

How can i diagram effectively this complex seeming statement further from this point

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Lathlee,

The best way to figure out how to diagram this is to follow the two steps in the Unless Equation, discussed in Lesson 2.

Starting with the statement,

• There is no proof of anything except this guy is a sensational athletic

The first step in the Unless Equation is to make whatever clause is modified by the word "except" be the necessary condition. The second step is to negate the other part and make it the sufficient condition. The logical opposite of "no proof of anything" is that there is "proof of something"/"proof of at least one thing." Thus--

Proof of something proof that "this guy is a sensational athletic"

In other words, if there is proof of at least one thing, then there's proof that this guy is a sensational athletic.

[lathlee]

Thank you so much. But I would still like to be addressed about this matter of the following:

Dear Admin and Lsat logic book authors,

As Far as I know, the indicator; No, None, Never, usually produce conditional reasoning statement.

This is somewhat puzzling : In 2016 Logic bible book sets and Lsat bible lessons 1-12, there is a drill sets that when a sentence is decorated by the conditioner of NO, it is a sufficient conditioner indicator and necessary conditioner is indicated.

But you guys never listed word of No in one of the conditional relationship indicator even though you guys are aware of the possibility NO can create conditional relationship.

as in No child is left behind: Child (Negation) left behind

as in None of your paper is Good: Paper Your (Negation) Good.

I will never beat Seto Kaiba in a duel. Duel I (Negation) Beat Seto Kaiba

I know as stated in Lsat bible book, No peace without Justice is Peace Justice as in the presence of No is deleted. I know this is truth as well. How come you guys do not address these issues.

I am wondering how come LSAT bible books did not bother to address these issues.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Lathlee,

Thanks for the question! They actually are addressed, in repeated form throughout both the LRB and LGB. The problem is that you are treating each statement as if they should act in identical fashion just because the words appear similar, when in fact they are quite different. So, they've been addressed in multiple places and in multiple ways in the books. I've also discussed similar issues on our blog, and in this Forum lots of times. So, all those phrasings have received a lot of attention, which is justifiable given how confusing they can be!

The key here to improvement is that you want to see what's occurring in each statement. For example, take this one:

There is no proof of anything except this guy is a sensational athletic. - Quote from Jerry Maguire

Proof nothing (negation of anything) except this guy is a sensational athletic.

How can i diagram effectively this complex seeming statement further from this point

You focused on the "no" but instead look right in the middle of the sentence: except should jump out at you in bold letter, because we know unless, except, until, and without are special cases that all act the same way (and are very often paired with negatives such as "no"). Same for "No peace without Justice" — the "without" there should have been instantly identified and processed. When you start to see each of these as being part of bigger patterns, then you can process them faster and it won't seem so confusing.

You mentioned that "no" isn't listed as an indicator. I talk about how conditional relationships are built around absolutes, and depending on how "no" or "none" or "never" is used and the other words around it, you could end up with the negative appear on either the sufficient or necessary, or neither (as we saw in the "without" case). There are multiple examples in the book that reinforce the different ways these terms are used, and in fact the point of the examples and drills is to help show you the different ways things can be phrased and what follows from those phrasings.

Thanks!

[lathlee]

Hi. Dave, I absolutely agree that No , never, and none are a tricky indicator of the negative relationship of conditional reasoning that it sometimes plays no role in indicating the causal relationship is upon us.

I just want to clarify between you and I (possibly other authors) What I really meant was as you said many parts of the book it mentions and treats them as Negative conditional indicators in some of the drills and problems. but in pg 173 of LCR (2016 version) and pg 60 of Logic Games (2016 version), they are not listed under the list of conditional relationship indicators which the authors should memorize them for the sake of the actual test.

This answer clarify some of the confusing AIR in MY room (I totally can see smarter readers would have understood even needing to ask this question)

I also agree that in case of No peace without justice

(Negation) Peace Justice.

as in that No isn't always activated but we must be careful.

Most importantly thank you so much for addressing my petty problem.

Again, I just want to make sure I am not complaining about the quality of the logic bibles; as you know, it is widely regarded as No.1 recommended books for LSAT preparations and in my case as well if someone asks for a recommendation for LSAT.

[Adam Tyson]

Be careful about how you handle that construction of "No X is Y", lathlee. The "no" does NOT typically negate the sufficient condition, but rather the necessary condition. If it helps, try paraphrasing those claims as simpler "if...then" statements. What if the claim was this:

No member of my family is a convicted felon

Would you paraphrase this as "everyone who is not in my family is a convicted felon"? So everyone in the world, other than your family members, must be convicted felons? Of course not! But a diagram of My Family Felon would mean exactly that. When your diagram makes no sense when compared to the original statement, that's how you know for sure that you are doing it wrong. Instead, the right way to paraphrase that claim is to say "if you are a member of my family then you are not a convicted felon", or My Family Felon. That makes more sense, doesn't it?

Now, you need to deal with what happens when you have a "no" construction coupled with one of our four special necessary condition indicators, which are unless, except, until, and without. As Dave explained, you need to focus on those and the powerful, pivotal role they play in the claim. Suppose we are looking at the claim "No one gets into the show without a ticket". That word "without" tells you that "a ticket" is necessary. Following the rules of the Unless Equation, you must now negate the other term in the claim in order to create the sufficient condition. So "no one gets into the show" becomes "if one gets into the show", and we end up with a claim that can be paraphrased as "if you get in, you have a ticket", and diagrammed as

Get In to Show Ticket.

Beware the "no" construction, and do not just negate the word or phrase it's closest to. Instead, consider what the statement really means in a more holistic and less mechanical way, put it in an "if...then" form, and diagram that in the usual way.

Keep plugging away, you'll get there!