Inclusive/Exclusive "or"

Amazing LSAT Vibes

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?

Slippin_Jimmy

I think it depends mostly on context. Even though it may be improper to submit both requirements, does not mean you cannot do both. I think inclusivity comes down to how possible an action is. In this statute, perhaps an overzealous attorney/client fulfills both requirements. May be weird, but logically speaking, is possible.

podtaxed

The LSAT does not want us to completely change our understanding of 'or', but it wants us to re-think its possibilities. For instance, the LSAT may say "For the Friday during winter break, Kelly can go to China or Australia" in this context we can assume that it is impossible for Kelly to go to both. However, if it were to say something like "Kelly will go to the workshop with Terry or Aseulo," then it is obvious that Kelly could go with either or both.

Think of it as an expansion but not an absolute change of definition.