In the Core curriculum, we are told that for the purposes of formal logic, we are to interpret "or" as inclusive, because that's how the LSAT wants us to think. Is this also the default in law?

I'm not looking for legal advice. I saw this issue come to a head at my job where I currently work as a paralegal, and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts or musings on this subject.

Here is the rule in question (in relevant part)

Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) states:

.... this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness or a disclosure signed by counsel for the party. The report must contain: ..."

One side argued that it was improper for the other party to submit both a written report prepared and signed by the witness AND a disclosure signed by counsel for the party.

Is there any general rule of logic that would allow a person to interpret the "or" in the statute as inclusive?

I'm in the early stages of studying for the LSAT, and am planning to sit for the Aug 2024 test, to apply to schools for the F25 semester. I am struggling to understand how law schools will evaluate me, and how I'm supposed to report my GPA, because I went to an undergrad where I didn't receive grades. Instead of grades, for every course, I received a narrative evaluation detailing my class participation, the subjects I wrote papers on, my performance on those papers, and my strengths and weaknesses in the class (for better or for worse). In general, I felt my college performance was good, but it's hard to evaluate because it's qualitative data.

I took classes at other colleges in the area, and did receive 5 grades.

Are law schools going to calculate a GPA based off these 5 grades? Does anyone have experience with this topic? Does anyone have any suggestions insofar as who I could reach out to at LSAC or otherwise for answers?