I am curious about the correct interpretation of the following English sentence in predicate logic. I suppose, I may also have to ask an English grammarian.
Let the following predicates be given. The domain consists of all people.
$F(x) = x$ is friendly
$H(x) = x$ is helpful
$S(x) = x$ is a student
Express the following English sentence in terms of $F(x)$, $H(x)$, $S(x)$, quantifiers, and logical connectives.
"No student is friendly but not helpful."
Is it:
A
$¬∃x(S(x) ∧ F(x) ∧ ¬H(x))$
There does not exist a person such that that person is a student, that person is friendly, and that person is not helpful.
or
B
$∀x( S(x) → (¬F(x)∧H(x))$
that person is not friendly and helpful. For all people if a person is a student then
FOLLOW UP
It may be useful to note the ambiguity in the English, which is clarified by the first comment on my posting to the English Grammar & Usage stack exchange, linked HERE
Notice that when you wrote an English sentence corresponding to A, you had (more or less) the same English sentence with which you began.
Also notice that statement B says that if a person is a student, that person is not friendly, which your original sentence did not imply (and which we hope is not true!).
(This would be more appropriate in a comment, but I haven't the reputation.)