problem understanding negative/double negative/triple negati

[Zestor]

I am having a huge problem understanding negative/double negative/triple negative statements,
whether they are an answer choice or in stimulus of LR questions.

I can understand them, but it just takes me a long time. Is there any efficient way to turn them into positive statements so that I can understand what the OPPOSITE of them says so I can make sense of them? (remove the negative components)

Here's one of the simpler examples: No tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year.

The way that I can understand such a statement in my head is by getting rid of "NO" and replacing it with every tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents will NOT be adopted this year.

Note: I am not having trouble NEGATING statements (ex. NONE ---becomes ---> SOME)

PLEASE help!!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Zestor,

It's completely normal to be confused by the phrasing on the test. It's all part of the game---why say something directly when you can make it as complex as possible? It makes complete sense to try to translate the language in to easier to understand terms. The only trick is to make sure you are doing so accurately. You have to be confident in the meaning though.

Let's take a look at a few examples.

1) Such everyday events cannot be thought unlikely to occur over the long run.

In this example, we have a double negative: "cannot be thought unlikely." We can think of that as the logical opposite of unlikely. That includes everything from a little likely to completely certain. You could think of it as likely, but you want to include the idea that it's extremely likely.

2) A serious accident at such a plant is not improbable

This example is somewhat easier than the first, if only because the double negatives are directly next to each other. We can treat this exactly as we did the first example. If something is "not improbable" than it includes everything but improbable. That's situations that are probable to certain.

3) No tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year.

This is your example, and I would treat it differently than the examples above. Why? Because this is a conditional statement, so I would understand it as I would any conditional. If a package would greatly inconvenience parents, then it won't be adopted. If a package is adopted, then it doesn't greatly inconvenience parents. In this case, the conditional structure actually simplifies the concept.

So overall, yes, you can simplify these statements, as long as you do so accurately.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[T.B.Justin]

Hi Zestor,

It's completely normal to be confused by the phrasing on the test. It's all part of the game---why say something directly when you can make it as complex as possible? It makes complete sense to try to translate the language in to easier to understand terms. The only trick is to make sure you are doing so accurately. You have to be confident in the meaning though.

Let's take a look at a few examples.

1) Such everyday events cannot be thought unlikely to occur over the long run.

In this example, we have a double negative: "cannot be thought unlikely." We can think of that as the logical opposite of unlikely. That includes everything from a little likely to completely certain. You could think of it as likely, but you want to include the idea that it's extremely likely.

2) A serious accident at such a plant is not improbable

This example is somewhat easier than the first, if only because the double negatives are directly next to each other. We can treat this exactly as we did the first example. If something is "not improbable" than it includes everything but improbable. That's situations that are probable to certain.

3) No tax reduction package that would greatly inconvenience parents will be adopted this year.

This is your example, and I would treat it differently than the examples above. Why? Because this is a conditional statement, so I would understand it as I would any conditional. If a package would greatly inconvenience parents, then it won't be adopted. If a package is adopted, then it doesn't greatly inconvenience parents. In this case, the conditional structure actually simplifies the concept.

So overall, yes, you can simplify these statements, as long as you do so accurately.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

I have a couple questions about this:

Such events can be thought to certainly occur over the long run

Such events will occur over the long run

Scenario one, I think is more of a hypothetical, such as, if such events are thought of they certainly can occur over the long run.

Scenario two, I think, is a guarantee for a future occurrence.

Since, scenario one is about the future, as well, can scenario two be a logical construction of the double negative statement?
(while having the same affect)

In a number sense, can unlikely, improbable be considered a percentage from 49 to 0? And so, simplifying that, the logical opposite would be anything from 51 to 100.

In your third scenario that explains OPs example (double-negative conditional statement)

The former is a mistaken negation and the latter is a mistaken reversal. So, this is just a way to manipulate these double-negatives in a way that can be more easily understandable?


Thanks!

[Charlie Melman]

Hey Justin,

Let me take your questions one by one:

First, I agree that your first scenario is speculative. It says "there is a world in which the events will certainly occur in the long run." Are we in that world? Who knows! That's why it's speculative. Your second scenario is certain about those events occurring. So they are, as you say, two very different statements.

Second, I'm not sure exactly what your question about the double-negative is. If you're asking whether we can rewrite scenario two to say "such events will not not occur in the long run" with the same meaning, then the answer is: we can. The quoted statement means the same thing as your original scenario two.

Third, yes and no. Unlikely = improbable = 0-49%. So you definitely have that right. But the logical opposite of "improbable" is "not improbable." That means 50% as well as 51-100%. You just included 51-100%, but if something is equally likely to happen as to not happen (50% probability) then it is, by definition not improbable.

Fourth, while I didn't write the original statements, those rephrasings are manipulations of the negatives in the conditional to make them easier to understand. It's useful to take a little time to do this on LR questions, as it helps you avoid mistakes.

Hope this helps!

[Kleins]

Do you recommend creating such phrases as a part of practicing the negatives, Charlie? Or is there a better strategy for this?

[Dave Killoran]

Do you recommend creating such phrases as a part of practicing the negatives, Charlie? Or is there a better strategy for this?

Hey Kleins,

Thanks for the question! I think that's a great way to practice it, especially just in random scenarios. For example, if you are talking with your friends and someone says "We have to get pizza tonight," try to turn that into a double negative statement ("We must not not get pizza tonight" or "we can never not get pizza tonight" or something similar). Almost any statement can be rephrased

If the above is too nuts (and I can see where you'd think that, lol), then at least sit down and study some of the many LSAT sentences out there with multiple negatives. Sometimes just stopping during practice to recognize what they are doing makes all the difference to better understanding the ideas during a live test.

The truth is that each person will absorb these ideas differently, so the key is finding the best way for you to get them straight. That might be making your own or searching them out in the test itself, or a combination of the two (which is what I'd typically recommend).

I hope that helps. Thanks!