Subscription pricing
How do we tell the difference between an inclusive 'or' (group 3 rules) or an exclusive 'or' (can be negated to mean 'and')?
0
How do we tell the difference between an inclusive 'or' (group 3 rules) or an exclusive 'or' (can be negated to mean 'and')?
3 comments
@akikookmt881 said:
In the LSAT world, I think the default reading is inclusive (unless it is explicitly stated that it's "not both").
I agree with this. I think that inclusive is the way to go, but like @jkatz1488955 mentioned, it really depends on the context.
In the real world, if you are asked "what would you like for dessert, ice cream or cake?" I think it means you have to pick one of them, not both. (Well, you can try saying "BOTH!!" and the person who asked you would be like "okay...:neutral: ")
In the LSAT world, I think the default reading is inclusive (unless it is explicitly stated that it's "not both"). If it says "I'm going to meet A or B", this means "I'm going to meet A or B or both" unless specifically told "but not both." I saw once in Logic Games that says "or both." (A or B or both). But this "or both" is redundant.
But there are times that you have to interpret as exclusive. PT21.S2.Q20 (https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-20/) says:
A will either take a leave from her company or else she quits
/L --> Q
/Q -->L
But can she do both? I don't think she can take a leave once she quits: Q --> /L; therefore it's Q (--)/L
It will generally come from the context and depend on your translating the true meaning of a given statement. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any universal rule here.
"I can marry Susan or Beatrice tomorrow". With the reasonable assumption that I am not a polygamist, this is an exclusive OR.
"To score a 180 on the LSAT, you must either study very hard or be very lucky". Can a lucky person who studies very hard score a 180 on the LSAT? Sure. That makes this an inclusive OR.
Does that help?