Posting on Behalf of a 7Sage User: PT35.S3.Q1 (G1) - From among eight candidates...

Paula --Student Service--Paula --Student Service-- Member Administrator Student Services
edited February 2023 in Logic Games 848 karma

[I am posting on behalf of a 7Sage user. Please feel free to leave your comments below. Thank you for your help!]

Quick question on the conditional statement of the logic games.

This problem is from the Grouping and Sequencing Games lesson and for the statement "either P or L or both are selected" and the explanation for it is if not P then L ( shown in photo) so what does including "both" reference? doesn't it also mean it can be both P AND L as well?
image

Thank you in advance!

Comments

  • luffyyyyluffyyyy Live Member
    648 karma

    including "both" in the rule just means the "or" is an inclusive "or", which means it is ok to have both P and L in. How JY diagramed it captures that idea. If we don't see P then we must see L. What if we see P? Then the rule goes away and L becomes a floater. L can be in or out, it doesn't matter.

  • Cant Get RightCant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor
    27821 karma

    P is in the sufficient, so let's start there. It has two options, in or out.

    1. When P is out, the sufficient triggers. When the sufficient triggers, the necessary must follow, forcing L to be in. That's necessary to prevent them from both being out.
    2. When P is in, the sufficient fails and the rule goes away. That means P is free and can do whatever. So now L has two options: in or out.
      a. When L is out, that's fine. It doesn't violate the rule because P is in. So the P has the rule covered.
      b. When L is in, now they're both in. And that's fine according to the "or both" part of the rule.

    So even though this representation doesn't directly represent the "or both" part of the rule, we can see how it sort of takes care of itself. It's wrapped up in the representation even though there is no marking in the representation to denote it.

    Another thing about this which is important to understand is that the "or both" is actually redundant. Typically with these rules, they won't include say "or both." But the "or both" is still there even though they don't say it. Removing that possibility is what requires saying so with a "or but not both" or something like that. Those will still work exactly the same though. The "or both" is redundant and the rule doesn't change by taking that out.

Sign In or Register to comment.