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
My understanding is that the only "or" that is in group 3 is the inclusive or. The exclusive or and the "and" version do not fall under the group 3 translation rule of negate sufficient.
The Inclusive or means that at least one of the conditions is true, and it allows for both conditions to be true simultaneously as well.
For example: You must bring a passport or a driver’s license to the exam.
/P → DL (If you do not bring a passport, you must bring a driver’s license).
/DL → P (If you do not bring a driver’s license, you must bring a passport).
If you bring your passport, you meet the requirement. If you bring your driver’s license, you meet the requirement. If you bring both your passport and driver’s license, you also meet the requirement.
Negating one of the main concepts and making it the sufficient condition, with the other idea becoming the necessary condition ensures that at least one of the conditions must be true, and both can be true as well.
Looking some the comments below I see the tutor states the table/sit is exclusive because you can't sit at both places at once. BUT the Eco101/PoliSci101 is inclusive since you could do both. IF that is true then why would the steak/cod statement not be inclusive? can I not eat both? seem we are expected to make assumptions to determine pathways.
@Anthony.pardella@gmail.com The steak/cod example explicitly tells you that it's exclusive. "You must eat either the steak or the cod, but not both." The point they're trying to make is that you should assume the LSAT writers are intending the inclusive meaning of "or", unless there is some part of the stimulus that confirms otherwise. Or, in the case of sitting at the table, it's literally impossible by the laws of time and space for it to be both.
Is my reasoning correct ? If a sentence implies an " exclusive or" then it has to be one or the other but not both. But if a sentence implies an " inclusive or" you have the option of enrolling in econ 101 or pols 101 or maybe both ?
If Jon must enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester, how could I make a reasonable assumption that he can also register for both? There's no context in the sentence that indicates that. Especially with the topic of registering for courses, the given sentence really indicates that both are sufficient to fulfill some requirement because he can take either course. So again, why would I assume this is and/or. It just doesn't seem like a logical assumption to make grammatically.
@FaresDaraghmeh This is exactly how I feel, especially since exclusive or does not necessarily need the indicator "either" to be exclusive. It seems like an exclusive or only.
@FaresDaraghmeh There's nothing conceptually that makes registering for Econ 101 and Political Science 101 mutually exclusive. So why would you interpret the statement as exclusive? I think we just need to change our default interpretation. If you don't have language that creates exclusivity, and the concepts themselves don't compel exclusivity, then you should interpret "or" as inclusive.
@Kevin_Lin Is it the word "either" that makes it exclusionary? Because it's stated that the meaning of the first sentence would remain the same with or without the word "either".
eg. You must sit at (either) one end of the table or the other.
I'm not understanding the difference between that sentence and this one:
eg. Jon must enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester.
@180-Energy The difference comes from the underlying concepts. It’s impossible to sit at both ends at the table. So “sit at one end of the table or the other” is exclusive, no matter whether you use “either.” But taking multiple classes isn’t exclusive. It’s not conceptually impossible to take both. So “or” should be read inclusively.
I think that's true for the LSAT, but sometimes to 7Sage curriculum seems to confuse that. It's rare they will throw you a plain "or" without some type of qualifier to specify if it's inclusive or exclusive.
For the option 3 where "or" actually means "and", does that mean "Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon" = "Jane is a faster eater than Mary and John"?
But "Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon" /= "Jane is a faster eater than Mary or Jon"? ... where this now becomes option 2 usage of "or"?
@ahuang for ur second question, i think even the sentence "jane is a faster eater than mary or jon" is still the first usage (inclusive or) bc nowhere does it explicitly say that jane cannot be faster than both (or that the two are mutually exclusive); it simply says she is faster than mary or jon. and if i understood this correctly, then we always should assume that "or" refers to the inclusive or, unless stated otherwise! a tad bit confusing but i hope this helps!
113 comments
who actually came up with this test omg
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
I feel the same way makes everything unnecessarily more difficult
shoulda kept the tower of babel
I made flash cards to help memorize group 1-4 conditional indicators, thought I’d share in case it would be helpful to anyone else. I’m redoing this course after getting through most of it and taking the lsat and not doing as well as I hoped. Looking back I realize how important it is to know these. https://quizlet.com/1153975729/lsat-7sage-conditional-indicators-to-share-flash-cards/?i=71yhg9&x=1jqY
@Elideebeep thanks so much <3
@carmiilol sure thing :)
@Elideebeep Is "the only" being in group 1 an accident or did I miss something?
@alisha.2k3 it was briefly mentioned as an add on to group 1 conditional indicators 😊 thanks for checking!
@Elideebeep You're a gem for this!
@jaydenca :) happy to share!
@Elideebeep Thank you so much!
@gracehornick you got it!
"English. It's a beautiful language" LOL
If you're confused by this, just move on. The explanation overcomplicates things
i had to close my eyes and take a moment after this one
2 letters causing so much confusion and suffering
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
This was the most confusing video by far.
this hurts my head
lawdaddy420
even with context, inclusive ors feel like such a stretch to be making assumptions on...
My understanding is that the only "or" that is in group 3 is the inclusive or. The exclusive or and the "and" version do not fall under the group 3 translation rule of negate sufficient.
The Inclusive or means that at least one of the conditions is true, and it allows for both conditions to be true simultaneously as well.
For example: You must bring a passport or a driver’s license to the exam.
/P → DL (If you do not bring a passport, you must bring a driver’s license).
/DL → P (If you do not bring a driver’s license, you must bring a passport).
If you bring your passport, you meet the requirement. If you bring your driver’s license, you meet the requirement. If you bring both your passport and driver’s license, you also meet the requirement.
Negating one of the main concepts and making it the sufficient condition, with the other idea becoming the necessary condition ensures that at least one of the conditions must be true, and both can be true as well.
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!
seems like we have to make assumptions to differentiate between exclusive or inclusive ?
Looking some the comments below I see the tutor states the table/sit is exclusive because you can't sit at both places at once. BUT the Eco101/PoliSci101 is inclusive since you could do both. IF that is true then why would the steak/cod statement not be inclusive? can I not eat both? seem we are expected to make assumptions to determine pathways.
@Anthony.pardella@gmail.com The steak/cod example explicitly tells you that it's exclusive. "You must eat either the steak or the cod, but not both." The point they're trying to make is that you should assume the LSAT writers are intending the inclusive meaning of "or", unless there is some part of the stimulus that confirms otherwise. Or, in the case of sitting at the table, it's literally impossible by the laws of time and space for it to be both.
Is my reasoning correct ? If a sentence implies an " exclusive or" then it has to be one or the other but not both. But if a sentence implies an " inclusive or" you have the option of enrolling in econ 101 or pols 101 or maybe both ?
"John can eat pumpkin pie or cherry pie"
Applying the concept "and/or", we know that John must eat either eat pumpkin pie, cherry pie, or both!
And/Or is the most common encounter on the LSAT
If Jon must enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester, how could I make a reasonable assumption that he can also register for both? There's no context in the sentence that indicates that. Especially with the topic of registering for courses, the given sentence really indicates that both are sufficient to fulfill some requirement because he can take either course. So again, why would I assume this is and/or. It just doesn't seem like a logical assumption to make grammatically.
@FaresDaraghmeh This is exactly how I feel, especially since exclusive or does not necessarily need the indicator "either" to be exclusive. It seems like an exclusive or only.
@FaresDaraghmeh There's nothing conceptually that makes registering for Econ 101 and Political Science 101 mutually exclusive. So why would you interpret the statement as exclusive? I think we just need to change our default interpretation. If you don't have language that creates exclusivity, and the concepts themselves don't compel exclusivity, then you should interpret "or" as inclusive.
@Kevin_Lin Is it the word "either" that makes it exclusionary? Because it's stated that the meaning of the first sentence would remain the same with or without the word "either".
eg. You must sit at (either) one end of the table or the other.
I'm not understanding the difference between that sentence and this one:
eg. Jon must enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester.
@180-Energy The difference comes from the underlying concepts. It’s impossible to sit at both ends at the table. So “sit at one end of the table or the other” is exclusive, no matter whether you use “either.” But taking multiple classes isn’t exclusive. It’s not conceptually impossible to take both. So “or” should be read inclusively.
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.
So you're saying "or/either or" can be "and," "or, but not both," as well as...
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?
here is my thinking, (could be totally wrong) The phrase: "Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon."
This does imply that Jane eats faster than both Mary and Jon individually — not just one of them. Here's why:
The word "either" in this context refers to each of the two options considered individually.
So, "faster than either Mary or Jon" means:
Faster than Mary.
AND
Faster than Jon.
This is equivalent in meaning to:
"Jane is a faster eater than both Mary and Jon."
It does not set up a conditional or an ultimatum, nor does it imply anything like:
"If Jane eats faster than Mary, then Jon eats faster than both."
That kind of conditional logic isn’t implied here. The sentence is just making a comparison between Jane and each of the two individuals separately.
#help
What groups do the other two or's belong to?
so the default meaning of or we should assume would be inclusive?
#help (added by Admin)
I think that's true for the LSAT, but sometimes to 7Sage curriculum seems to confuse that. It's rare they will throw you a plain "or" without some type of qualifier to specify if it's inclusive or exclusive.
For the option 3 where "or" actually means "and", does that mean "Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon" = "Jane is a faster eater than Mary and John"?
But "Jane is a faster eater than either Mary or Jon" /= "Jane is a faster eater than Mary or Jon"? ... where this now becomes option 2 usage of "or"?
@ahuang for ur second question, i think even the sentence "jane is a faster eater than mary or jon" is still the first usage (inclusive or) bc nowhere does it explicitly say that jane cannot be faster than both (or that the two are mutually exclusive); it simply says she is faster than mary or jon. and if i understood this correctly, then we always should assume that "or" refers to the inclusive or, unless stated otherwise! a tad bit confusing but i hope this helps!