Diagramming problem!

[Aquamarine]

No written constitution is more than a paper with words on it until those words are both interpreted and applied.

Since there're two conditional expressions ("No~is~" and "~until~") in one sentence, I'm confused how it makes as a diagram (eg. A->B sth like that).
Which one is the sufficient condition and the necessary condition?
And what is contrapositive of it?

Please explain me.
Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

This is definitely a complex sentence, and a reminder that sometimes the "hard and fast" rules of diagramming don't seem to easily apply, in which case it's important that you can think through these statements without recourse to mechanical rules.

When I read this sentence I hear this:

If the words haven’t been interpreted or the words haven’t been applied, then a written constitution is nothing more than paper with words on it.

The contrapositive would be:

If a written constitution IS something more than paper with words on it, then the words HAVE been interpreted and the words HAVE been applied.

Notice that I am resisting the usual temptation to reduce these ideas to shorthand symbols. With a sentence this dense, I don't trust my little abbreviations to maintain clarity.

Check out this trainwreck:

~Int or ~App --> WC just PW

~(WC just PW) --> Int and App

Ugh. Not very helpful to my brain.

==================

Mechanically what's happening is we're saying
X is true until both both A and B have happened.

That gives us
~A or ~B --> X is true
and
X is false --> A and B

In this example "X" = "no written constitution is more than paper with words".

I always rephrase negative statements positively.
"no WC is more than paper w/ words"
is the same as
"All WC are nothing more than paper w/ words"

So that's how I would get to
~A or ~B --> All WC's are nothing more than paper w/ words

WC is something more than paper w/ words --> A and B

Let me know if you have questions about any of this.