What contextual information about "Jon must enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester" gives it away that it's the "inclusive" or? Since we need to use context to figure out which "or" it is, I'm confused how it's clear just from reading the sentence that Jon could technically pick both classes. Thx in advance!
I was thinking about why we might say Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon rather than Jane is a faster eater than Mary and Jon. Is it to rule out any confusion about the sentence being interpreted as saying Jane is a faster eater than Mary and Jon combined?
This lesson is really confusing me because why do we have to separate them into three meanings and do the negate sufficient indicators apply to all three?
You are saying "either" is optional, but it obviously is not. You added it in the second two sentences but not in the first one even though the structure is IDENTICAL. So when is either optional and when is it not?
Can the "inclusive or" also be "none?" So by or, could it mean "and," "or," or "none." Or rather, "or" means at least one choice must be made (so it can mean just (1) one but not the other (2) both) thus you cannot pick none
There's confused people on this thread, and it looks like they've been there for months without someone reaching out to clarify. I have similar concerns. Why is the "inclusive or" the only "or" definition included in Group 3? And if we are treating the inclusive as part of Group 3, doesn't the "inclusive or" convey more information than just the Group 3 definition of /A → B, /B → A? If the "inclusive or" explicitly includes the option of it being both, doesn't their relationship include A ↔ B? It seems like "Lawgic" as shorthand breaks down around here, if we're unable to express the actual idea behind the "inclusive or." Also, where does that leave us with the other two mentioned definitions of "or?" Are we safe in diagramming those? (If we're talking about it, seems as if the "exclusive or" fits Group 3 more accurately than "inclusive or" does.)
Would be it more helpful to us, instead of trying to make "or" fit into the Group 1-4 system of indicators, "or" and its variants are emphasized as ambiguous indicators we have to be careful about, and consider its context?
honestly I feel like at this point in the lessons, it just gets more confusing if you keep trying to understand every micro section of information. I think the best option is to just skim the information and come back after understanding the big picture later on
In the last example (with Jon), there's a 'must' in there too. Is 'must' not an indicator for a necessary condition? How we do know to follow the plan for the 'or' instead of the 'must'?
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
59 comments
Wait sorry so are all these versions of "or" group 3 indicators or just the inclusive "and/or"
What contextual information about "Jon must enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester" gives it away that it's the "inclusive" or? Since we need to use context to figure out which "or" it is, I'm confused how it's clear just from reading the sentence that Jon could technically pick both classes. Thx in advance!
I was thinking about why we might say Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon rather than Jane is a faster eater than Mary and Jon. Is it to rule out any confusion about the sentence being interpreted as saying Jane is a faster eater than Mary and Jon combined?
Three different types of or
Inclusive or (and/or)
You can use a pen or marker
Def: You can use just a pan, you can use just a marker, you can use both a pen and a marker
Exclusive or
You must use a pen or marker, but not both
Def: You can use a pen, you can use a market, but you cannot use both. You must choose one or the other, not both
And
The highlighter is better at marking than either the pen or the marker
def: The highlighter is better than the pen and the marker
Inclusive (and/or)
Feel free to grab some snacks or a drink.
Inclusive (and)
The new kitten thinks it is better behaved than either the youngest dog or the eldest dog.
Exclusive
My brother is going to stay up super late or go to bed ridiculously early.
In the inclusive (and/or) it is totally okay for the person to chose both a drink and a snack.
In the and example the new kitten thinks it is better behaved than both to the other options, namely its doggie siblings.
In the exclusive example it is simply not possible to do both.
If the exclusive or are not included in group 3 and shouldn't apply the same rule. Then how do we translate the "exclusive or" into Lawgic?
i hate this sentence:
because a valid - albeit awkward - interpretation is that she's more devoted to work than either her friends or her family are devoted to work.
as a chronic over-thinker, this kind of sentence is wasted energy for me.
So you're saying "or/either or" can be "and," "or, but not both," as well as...
Where do the "exclusive or" and "simply and" fit into the groups if they do at all?
Isnt inclusive or the same as exclusive or?
If take one or the other.
Is it that in inclusive it can be A and not B or A and B. In exclusive is just A or B, cant have both.
This lesson is really confusing me because why do we have to separate them into three meanings and do the negate sufficient indicators apply to all three?
If you're confused by this, just move on. The explanation overcomplicates things
So is it safe to assume that unless the sentence contains the word 'either', then we should assume 'or' to be the inclusive?
#feedback it says group 2 at the beginning of the video
Can't this sentence: "Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon." also be taken as Jane is a faster eater than Mary OR Jon, but not both?
Inclusive OR most common the test because it has the most interpretations to play with. Oye vey, hope everyone's studying is going smoothhhhh.
Happy Friday!
You are saying "either" is optional, but it obviously is not. You added it in the second two sentences but not in the first one even though the structure is IDENTICAL. So when is either optional and when is it not?
#help
What groups do the other two or's belong to?
#feedback
the first slide on the video says Group 2 - OR when it should say Group 3 - OR.
Can the "inclusive or" also be "none?" So by or, could it mean "and," "or," or "none." Or rather, "or" means at least one choice must be made (so it can mean just (1) one but not the other (2) both) thus you cannot pick none
#feedback
There's confused people on this thread, and it looks like they've been there for months without someone reaching out to clarify. I have similar concerns. Why is the "inclusive or" the only "or" definition included in Group 3? And if we are treating the inclusive as part of Group 3, doesn't the "inclusive or" convey more information than just the Group 3 definition of /A → B, /B → A? If the "inclusive or" explicitly includes the option of it being both, doesn't their relationship include A ↔ B? It seems like "Lawgic" as shorthand breaks down around here, if we're unable to express the actual idea behind the "inclusive or." Also, where does that leave us with the other two mentioned definitions of "or?" Are we safe in diagramming those? (If we're talking about it, seems as if the "exclusive or" fits Group 3 more accurately than "inclusive or" does.)
Would be it more helpful to us, instead of trying to make "or" fit into the Group 1-4 system of indicators, "or" and its variants are emphasized as ambiguous indicators we have to be careful about, and consider its context?
honestly I feel like at this point in the lessons, it just gets more confusing if you keep trying to understand every micro section of information. I think the best option is to just skim the information and come back after understanding the big picture later on
In the last example (with Jon), there's a 'must' in there too. Is 'must' not an indicator for a necessary condition? How we do know to follow the plan for the 'or' instead of the 'must'?
Is the difference between
"You must sit at (either) one end of the table or the other."
and
"Jon must (either) enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester."
just the placement of "either?"
How do we translate these 3 into diagrams?