Happy New Year. Now it's back to work on the Roman frontier.
North & Hillard Ex. 218:
An Indian Chief was taken prisoner by the Spaniards, and because he was a man of influence among the tribes they cut off his hands, with the intention of disabling him from fighting any more against them.
In the footnotes N & H advise the student to translate "disabling him" as "that he might not be able":- giving, I think: "ut non posset" (a consequence, as opposed to a purpose; though, an argument may be made for both).
The Answer Book:
"...utramque manum desecuerunt eo consilio ut eum rursus in se arma ferre prohiberent."
So, either the Spaniards OR the having-been-cut-off-hands prevent him (eum) from carrying weapons against them (in se), again (hesitated to translate "rursus" as "on-the-other-hand").
However erudite, this is a long way from "ut non posset"—why would N & H issue this advice and ignore it themselves—or, have I missed something?