- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mar 31, 2020
What is the difference between A <--I--> B and A <---> ~B? Is there any? If you were to translate the second example it would imply that ~B --> A and that is not what is necessarily being said. If it is ~B it can also be ~A, they can both not occur. So my question is what is the difference between A <- I--> B and A <---> ~B? It seems like the second example is just the wrong way to illustrate the relationship but that it is intended to mean the same thing.
Is it safe to say that if there is any relationship that has a positive trigger leading to a negative result, can I ALWAYS illustrate this with double-not arrow?
I understand that "all except/all but" is the opposite of "if and only if". "All except/all but" means that it has to be one or the other, and that it can't be neither. This makes it different from a positive trigger leading to a negative trigger, such as A --> ~B. In this situation, it does not have to be either, it can be that they both do not occur. So this is where I get confused. How would you diagram problems with "all/except/all but"? Are there any LSAT examples from the past that I can look at to help me practice with "all except/all but"?