The Rhetoric of Law: Nonoccurrence, Entailment, Hypothesis and Tense

Read-only question overview. Answers and scoring remain inside authenticated learner attempts.

Which issue is central to the typical counterfactual use of law?
What is the response in «law jiʾtani la-akramtuka»?
What is Ibn al-Hajib’s objection about the consequence?
When may nonoccurrence of an outcome be more strongly understood?
What is the condition in the verse about the heavens and earth?
Which mistaken generalization should be avoided?
What interpretive error must be avoided in «fa-law shaʾa la-hadakum ajmaʿin»?
Why are a necessary condition and an ordinary cause not always equivalent?
How does logical use of law differ from rhetorical Arabic use?
What does lawla do in the cited expression?
What is the main rhetorical aim of the hoofed-animal flight verse?
Why is «walakinnahu lam yatir» important in the verse?
What verb form follows law in «law yutiʿukum ... laʿanittum»?
What can the imperfect suggest in «law yutiʿukum»?
Which part is the negated condition in «law lam yajtahid la-fashila»?
What force does ba add in «wa-ma hum bi-muʾminin»?
What can the active participle convey in «innama nahnu mustahziʾun»?
What happens to the response of law in «wa-law tara idh wuqifu ʿala al-nar»?
What is the rhetorical benefit of omitting the response after «wa-law tara»?
What is the morphological form of «wuqifu»?
Why can a past form describe a future eschatological event?
What is the form of «yawaddu» in the verse?
What is the contextual force of «law kanu muslimin»?
What most clearly differentiates law jiʾtani and law kanu muslimin?
Why is it wrong to treat wa-law tara only as an ordinary past counterfactual?
What must be considered when interpreting tense after law?
Which best describes the uses of law?
How does the common counterfactual law differ from in and idha?
When a law-clause lacks an overt response, what should a learner examine?
Which analysis correctly distinguishes three uses of law?