Negating the Sentence with 'because' I have to negate the sentence
 "They pushed us into a big white room and I began to blink because the light hurt my eyes."
My main issue is I'm unsure how the word 'because' can be negated. 
If P="I began to blink"
Q="the light hurt my eyes"
could "I began to blink because the light hurt my eyes" be written as (Q->P)? 
 A: In real logic that would actually correspond to real language, dealing with the negation of a causative statement like that is not easy. If you translate that sentence to classical logic, I would say that you get $P \wedge (Q \Rightarrow R)$, where $P$ is "they pushed us into a big white room", $Q$ is "the light hurt my eyes", and $R$ is "I began to blink". So then you negate with DeMorgan's laws, getting $\neg P \vee (Q \wedge \neg R)$. But keep in mind that this is a strange negation from the linguistic perspective.
A: 
"They pushed us into a big white room and I began to blink because the light hurt my eyes."

Let:


*

*$P$ = "They pushed us into a big white room" 

*$B$ = "I began to blink"

*$L$ = "The light hurt my eyes"

*$C(L,B)$, a causation relation, which might be represented by material implication $B\to L$


We have: $$P \wedge L \wedge C(L, B)
\\[2ex]
P\wedge L\wedge (B\to L)$$
This is negated as: $$ \neg P \vee \neg L \vee \neg C(L, B)
\\[2ex]
\neg P \vee \neg L\vee \neg (B\to L)$$
That is: "Either they did not push us into the big white room, or the light did not hurt my eyes, or light hurting my eyes did not cause me to begin to blink."
