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"?
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?
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.
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?
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.
75 comments
seems like we have to make assumptions to differentiate between exclusive or inclusive ?
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"?
"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
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?
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.
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?