would it be context clues that determine whether or not an "or" is inclusive or exclusive? like obviously for the picking a spot at the table, you physically cannot be in two spots at once. but why is it possible that Jon is able to pick both Econ 101 and Polisci 101? it's not a given that he can/can't do that, cause what if there is a rule about not being able to take both? I'm just a bit confused on this part
@sydneys1942 It says in the written portion of this lesson that if the LSAT wants to communicate the exclusive meaning, it will be explicit. So if you simply had the sentence
"Jon must enroll in Econ 101 or Polisci 101 this term"
there is no condition that makes it impossible for him to do both, only a condition that makes it impossible for him to do neither. For example, we don't know how many courses he can select, we don't know when the courses are. We don't know anything other than that he will for sure take one of the classes. This sentence would differ from
"Jon must only enroll in one class between Econ 101 and Polisci 101 for this term, but not both."
or something along those lines. This still means he will end up in either Econ 101 or Polisci 101, because it is required that he takes one or the other. But the preceding statement says he can only pick one. In this case, it is explicit that we are to interpret the exclusive or meaning.
I feel the ghost of my symbolic logic professor yelling at me for this whole video. Everything so far has rewarded very literal thinking… until now. You might have broken my little autistic brain with this one. No one has ever told me or can mean and and I am SHOOK.
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 ?
I really just want to know how all of this applies to the questions. I want so badly to get to the point that we are learning question types and be able to use our lawgic to find and predict answers. I must stay the course.
Okay so do I need to ALWAYS make sure to use lawgic for these or just retain the practice of identifying? I understand they may get complex and it will be best to work these out with lawgic, but could it be better to just train my brain to observe these?
"According to this sentence, Jon must take at least one of the two classes. That much is certain. But, he could take both."
But he doesnt need to? he needs only one, so why would he take both unless there is context that he likes and wants both. Why do more work when you only need to do whats necessary
Hoping to get a little clarity on when using 'or' vs. 'either/or' affects the overall meaning? In the first example, "You must sit at either one end of the table or the other", it was said that the removal of 'either' did not affect the meaning, given that you must sit at one end and its not possible to sit at both. But in which instances does the use of 'either/or' vs. just 'or' impact the meaning? Could it ever just be 'either' with no 'or'? Thanks!
If the exclusive example given "You must eat either steak or cod, but not both" were written as "You must eat either steak or cod" could it be considered inclusive? Is the "but not both" the indicator of this being an exclusive use of either/or?
@sofiaandreaj hi yes, when they say "but not both" that signposts an exclusive or. But without it, I would say that would signal an inclusive or, since the LSAT uses this meaning the most. So unless otherwise stated, the use of "or" in a sentence in the LSAT would be an inclusive or :)
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.
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!
With regard to the chair description does the same trick from the antecedent lesson not work. E.G. Not sitting on the left end of the table is necessary for sitting on the right end of the table, but sitting on the right end of the table is merely sufficient for not sitting on the left end of the table. Is the reason this is Flagged as different the function of the these two options presented within the frame of a logical argument?
#help so inclusive or , jon can take both classes because the sentence is not indicating that he isnt able to not take both like for example "Jon must enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester, but not both" ? someone tell me if i am understanding this pls
I'd like to know how the inclusive example couldn't also be exclusive. What if he can only do poli 101 or econ 101 and not both, just like the chair example? How do they differentiate?
It has to do with the situation. Though, in my limited experience, you must sometimes just take what you read as truth on the LSAT, common sense exist.
In the chair example, you cannot be in both places at once. As likely everyone here has been to college, you know that you are not limited to taking only 1 class during the semester (unless they conflict in time, which would likely be explicitly stated).
You could think of going to a restaurant for another common exclusive.
Soup or Salad.
This may not be a perfect way to describe it, but is how I see the differences. A matter of internal sense in what is possible given the presented situation when inclusivity or exclusivity is not explicitly stated.
108 comments
would it be context clues that determine whether or not an "or" is inclusive or exclusive? like obviously for the picking a spot at the table, you physically cannot be in two spots at once. but why is it possible that Jon is able to pick both Econ 101 and Polisci 101? it's not a given that he can/can't do that, cause what if there is a rule about not being able to take both? I'm just a bit confused on this part
@sydneys1942 It says in the written portion of this lesson that if the LSAT wants to communicate the exclusive meaning, it will be explicit. So if you simply had the sentence
"Jon must enroll in Econ 101 or Polisci 101 this term"
there is no condition that makes it impossible for him to do both, only a condition that makes it impossible for him to do neither. For example, we don't know how many courses he can select, we don't know when the courses are. We don't know anything other than that he will for sure take one of the classes. This sentence would differ from
"Jon must only enroll in one class between Econ 101 and Polisci 101 for this term, but not both."
or something along those lines. This still means he will end up in either Econ 101 or Polisci 101, because it is required that he takes one or the other. But the preceding statement says he can only pick one. In this case, it is explicit that we are to interpret the exclusive or meaning.
In the inclusive or, If Jon picks Econ 101 does't it mean he can't pick political science 101. So isn't it like the exclusive or
this hurts my head
I feel the ghost of my symbolic logic professor yelling at me for this whole video. Everything so far has rewarded very literal thinking… until now. You might have broken my little autistic brain with this one. No one has ever told me or can mean and and I am SHOOK.
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 ?
I really just want to know how all of this applies to the questions. I want so badly to get to the point that we are learning question types and be able to use our lawgic to find and predict answers. I must stay the course.
lawdaddy420
My CS classes are really paying off right now
This was the most confusing video by far.
Okay so do I need to ALWAYS make sure to use lawgic for these or just retain the practice of identifying? I understand they may get complex and it will be best to work these out with lawgic, but could it be better to just train my brain to observe these?
"According to this sentence, Jon must take at least one of the two classes. That much is certain. But, he could take both."
But he doesnt need to? he needs only one, so why would he take both unless there is context that he likes and wants both. Why do more work when you only need to do whats necessary
2 letters causing so much confusion and suffering
Hoping to get a little clarity on when using 'or' vs. 'either/or' affects the overall meaning? In the first example, "You must sit at either one end of the table or the other", it was said that the removal of 'either' did not affect the meaning, given that you must sit at one end and its not possible to sit at both. But in which instances does the use of 'either/or' vs. just 'or' impact the meaning? Could it ever just be 'either' with no 'or'? Thanks!
If the exclusive example given "You must eat either steak or cod, but not both" were written as "You must eat either steak or cod" could it be considered inclusive? Is the "but not both" the indicator of this being an exclusive use of either/or?
@sofiaandreaj hi yes, when they say "but not both" that signposts an exclusive or. But without it, I would say that would signal an inclusive or, since the LSAT uses this meaning the most. So unless otherwise stated, the use of "or" in a sentence in the LSAT would be an inclusive or :)
even with context, inclusive ors feel like such a stretch to be making assumptions on...
i had to close my eyes and take a moment after this one
who actually came up with this test omg
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!
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.
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!
"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
With regard to the chair description does the same trick from the antecedent lesson not work. E.G. Not sitting on the left end of the table is necessary for sitting on the right end of the table, but sitting on the right end of the table is merely sufficient for not sitting on the left end of the table. Is the reason this is Flagged as different the function of the these two options presented within the frame of a logical argument?
#help so inclusive or , jon can take both classes because the sentence is not indicating that he isnt able to not take both like for example "Jon must enroll in Economics 101 or Political Science 101 this semester, but not both" ? someone tell me if i am understanding this pls
@lemonpie yes I believe the ability distinguish between the "inclusive or" and "exclusive or" use case is based on the context of the sentence.
I'd like to know how the inclusive example couldn't also be exclusive. What if he can only do poli 101 or econ 101 and not both, just like the chair example? How do they differentiate?
@dancingqueen138
It has to do with the situation. Though, in my limited experience, you must sometimes just take what you read as truth on the LSAT, common sense exist.
In the chair example, you cannot be in both places at once. As likely everyone here has been to college, you know that you are not limited to taking only 1 class during the semester (unless they conflict in time, which would likely be explicitly stated).
You could think of going to a restaurant for another common exclusive.
Soup or Salad.
This may not be a perfect way to describe it, but is how I see the differences. A matter of internal sense in what is possible given the presented situation when inclusivity or exclusivity is not explicitly stated.
@DNAlex this is the only way that has made sense to me. Thank you for this lol.
@KaylenRodriguez
Still is fairly confusing. 😭
Good luck on the studies!