#5 - The government has proposed a plan requiring young

[Kristina Moen]

Hi mankariousc,

You are correct. The logical opposite of "at least one" or "some" is "none." Here, the original statement is "Some of the social ills that currently afflict the nation do not pose a direct threat to the nation's existence." which would be negated to "None of the social ills that currently afflict the nation do not pose a direct threat to the nation's existence."

But that sounds a little funny because of the double negative! So you can rewrite that as "Some of the social ills that currently afflict the nation do post a direct threat to the nation's existence." It's like saying "Nobody ate nothing for dinner." What that really means is that at least someone ate something for dinner. Double negatives are confusing, and we don't like them!

[Tony_Stark]

Hey, I have another question about E. I understand how to negate the statement, however, even after we negate it: "Some of the social ills that currently afflict the nation pose a direct threat..."

How do we know the "some social ills" in that statement are the same social ills as talked about in the stimulus?

A government could have 50 social ills. By saying "some" couldn't they be referring to one of the many other ones which could exist? Or should we assume the only social ills are the ones discussed?

Thanks in advance!

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Tony,

If we negate answer choice (E) we get "None of the social ills that currently afflict the nation pose a direct threat to the nation's existence."

Since the author argues that compelled service is appropriate only in response to threats to the nation's existence, if no social ill threatens the nation's existence, compelled service would not be justified.

With regard to the issue of what "some social ills" refers to -- the proposed plan will compel service to correct "various" social ills. If even one of the social ills is not a direct threat to the nation's existence, then the program won't be justified.

I hope this makes sense. Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton

[TommyPisciotta2]

Your application of the Assumption Negation Technique is based on a mistaken interpretation of the logical opposite of answer choice (E). The logical opposite of "some are not" is "all," just like the opposite of "some" is "none." So, the logical opposite of that answer choice would be:

• All of the social ills that currently afflict the nation pose a direct threat to the nations existence.

This clearly weakens the conclusion, and is therefore correct.

Please let me know if that makes sense. Thanks!

If this is the correct logical opposition, then why in the most recent Logical Reasoning Bible is the logical opposite of SOME stated as being NONE? Should we be regarding SOME in the answer choice as NOT ALL? If so, why?

[Adam Tyson]

The logical opposite of "some" is indeed "none", TommyPisciotta2, but think about how that would apply in the case of "some are not". The logical opposite would be "none are not"! That double negative is a bit unwieldy, but it translates nicely to "all are". Thus, "some are not" is negated to become "all are" simply to avoid the confusing double negative. I hope that helps clear this one up for you!

[LearntheLSAT]

Hello! As this question heavily relies on a double negative to be cleaned up to a nice positive negation, does the PS team have any drills or recommendations on how to practice this negation technique? I got the question right but I still stumble with how to negate answer choices properly

Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi LearntheLSAT,

The ideal source for practicing this particular skill is Chapter 11 of the Logical Reasoning Bible (https://shop.powerscore.com/books?id=a08E0000016xg1xIAA), covering Assumption questions. There you'll find the basics on negating statements, how to negate more complex statements like conditional statements, and also a "Statement Negation Drill," that will give you the opportunity to practice this skill. I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[chance123]

Hi!

Just wonder what if E is written as [none of the social ills that currently afflict the nation pose a direct threat the nation’s existence], will this be the correct answer? Whether [none ..pose ] NECESSARY ENOUGH?

Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Chance,

Your proposed rewording of answer choice E ("None of the social ills that currently afflict the nation pose a direct threat to the nation's existence.") would not be a correct answer to this Assumption question. But it would be the correct answer to a Strengthen question and to a Justify question. That answer would definitively prove the conclusion because the proposed program (to correct certain social ills) would, with that answer choice in place, definitely not meet the requirement that the social ills in question be a direct threat to the nation's existence. However, that answer would sweep too broadly to be truly necessary to the conclusion. That's because the program the conclusion discusses only responds to certain social ills (but not necessarily to ALL social ills). So we only need a fact in the answer that tells us those specific social ills (in education, housing, etc.) are not a direct threat to the nation's existence. Your proposed answer tells us more than that (and, as such, is not strictly necessary).

I hope this helps!

[canecaldo]

this may be a general question but it is something I have been struggling with:

for the negation of answer E would you only have to negate one of the words? such as changing "some" to "none" OR "do not" to "do"? I got the right answer without negating it by just seeing it fit the answer but I want to build my negation skills since I know not every answer is that straight forward.