All Discussions
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Sign In with 7Sage
Register
Sign In with 7Sage
Sign In
Apply for Membership
Categories
All Discussions
Activity
Categories
34.2K
All Categories
28.8K
LSAT
17.4K
General
5.3K
Logical Reasoning
1.4K
Reading Comprehension
1.7K
Logic Games
72
Podcasts
192
Webinars
30
Newsletters
13
Scholarships
193
Test Center Reviews
2.4K
Study Groups
118
Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
2.6K
Specific LSAT Dates
38
November 2024 LSAT
18
October 2024 LSAT
10
September 2024 LSAT
41
August 2024 LSAT
30
June 2024 LSAT
5
April 2024 LSAT
11
February 2024 LSAT
23
January 2024 LSAT
38
November 2023 LSAT
43
October 2023 LSAT
14
September 2023 LSAT
38
August 2023 LSAT
27
June 2023 LSAT
30
Sage Advice
5.1K
Not LSAT
4.1K
Law School Admissions
13
Law School Explained
13
Bar
10
Forum Rules
670
Technical Problems
292
Off-topic
Just want to confirm my diagram of "Not Otherwise" is correct.
Derekzzz
Alum
Member
November 2015
in
Logical Reasoning
46 karma
Just want to confirm my diagram of "Not Otherwise" is correct.
A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's Commendation if the officer has exemplary record, but not otherwise.
Exemplary Record >> Eligible
Not (Exemplary Record) >> Not (Eligible)
Comments
LSATisland
Free Trial
Inactive Sage
November 2015
1878 karma
Yup.
amipp_93
Alum
Member
November 2015
585 karma
This is a bicondtional statement. Jon explains it in the videos!
c.janson35
Free Trial
Inactive Sage
Inactive ⭐
November 2015
2398 karma
Yup, it is correct. And
@amipp170
is right also! Whenever you have A--->B and B-->A (which is what you have here if you take the contrapositive of the second statement), you can make the statements into one biconditional A<--->B.
Sign In
or
Register
to comment.
Comments