because he was with me all the time

[navi tasan]

1-John did not steal the diamond, because he was with me all the time.

2-John does not do nasty things to people, because nobody has seen him be nasty.

3-John does help people, because he helped me yesterday.

I think '1' works just fine. I am not sure about the other two. The 'because' clause is telling us why the affirmation was made. I am saying that 'John does not...' because we know for a fact that....


Gratefully,
Navi.

 

[Tdol]

In 1, I would use can't/couldn't have stolen. 3 might work better with a semi-colon instead of comma + because.

 

[emsr2d2]

I would go with Tdol's "can't/couldn't have stolen" or with "I know John didn't steal the diamond - he was with me the whole time".

 

[Raymott]

I think 1 and 3 would work in the right context. 2 is illogical.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you all very much.

Well, I guess the assumption in '2' is that if he did nasty things to people, someone would have seen it. So far, everything is fine, as the person one is being nasty to sees one be nasty to them. But how do we establish that nobody has seen him be nasty? We can't ask everybody if they have seen him be nasty or not....

There the reasoning is weak. But I am not sure it is illogical.


Gratefully,
Navi.

 

[Raymott]

So there are no serial killers, embezzlers, child abusers, etc. that nobody (willing or able to speak) has seen do nasty things?
When you say or write "Nobody has seen it", it has to mean "Nobody that I know of / Nobody on record / Nobody who has complained or is willing to admit to having seen him be nasty" - unless you are omniscient. Otherwise, where do you get the justification to say that sentence?
OK, I'll agree to saying that the reasoning is weak.