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?
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
#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?