Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

Trying to understand this logical statement

Chuggin Maple SyrupChuggin Maple Syrup Member
edited May 2021 in Logical Reasoning 66 karma

Hey guys,

I need help understanding this statement. There are two ways I can see it play out.

What do you guys think?

Argument 1:

"Seniority shall lapse only for the following reasons: Resignation, discharge for sufficient and just cause; and absences as a result of a disability, sickness or accident, for a period of twenty-four(24) consecutive months."

Reason 1: Resignation, discharge for sufficient and just cause;
(Quitting or being fired for a just cause)

Reason 2: and absences as a result of a disability, sickness or accident, for a period of twenty-four(24) consecutive months.
(Being out of work due to a disability, sickness or accident longer than 24 months)
Comma- a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place of thousands in a large numeral.

Semi-colon- a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/semicolon/
Watch this video, my point is from 1:15 – 1:35. It explains that it is a serial list which means explains that reason 1 is separate from reason 2”

Argument 2

“Seniority shall lapse only for the following reason: resignation,discharge for sufficient and just cause; and absences as a result of a disability, sickness or accident, for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months.”

(A)Seniority shall lapse----> (B)R, DSJC and; RD, S or A, for a period of 24 months

My argument is that “, for a period of twenty-four consecutive months” modifies the entire necessary condition. If one left for any reason stated in the necessary condition then they’re entitled to seniority as long as it’s with in 24 months.

Which argument correctly analyzes this logical statement?
  1. Which argument describes it better.5 votes
    1. Argument 1
      80.00%
    2. Argument 2
      20.00%
Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • canihazJDcanihazJD Alum Member Sage ⭐
    edited May 2021 8433 karma

    SL  → R or DSJC or ADRSA24

    My argument is that “, for a period of twenty-four consecutive months” modifies the entire necessary condition.

    Why?

  • Chuggin Maple SyrupChuggin Maple Syrup Member
    66 karma

    So the sufficient condition is Seniority shall lapse only for the following reasons 1: resignation, 2:discharge for sufficient and just cause; And 3: absences as a result of a disability, the following list, becomes a sub list to explain what number 3 is, sickness or accident. This is all followed by a time restriction, for a period of twenty-four (24) consecutive months. This last modifier modifies the entire, necessary condition.

    My buddy and I were reviewing the logic of this statement because it was directly related to my work place and we made a bet on who understood the logic of the statement. That's why I posted it here for some unbiased opinion. As I was a member of 7sage and passed the LSAT, I knew that this would be the next best place if I couldn't speak to an attorney regarding the meaning of this statement.

    However, my brother is a practicing attorney and had confirmed that the entirety of the necessary condition is being modified by that last modifier.

  • nnnnnnzzzznnnnnnzzzz Member
    177 karma

    You forgot everyday texts are not perfect. This statement is ambiguous. That's how people get sued or why amendments are made.

  • Chuggin Maple SyrupChuggin Maple Syrup Member
    66 karma

    I hear you, and that's why I decided to pursue it. If it works out to my benefit, why not? It's one thing if the statement was clear as day, but clearly, it's not. Thank you for your input.

Sign In or Register to comment.