"or" rule vs "not both" rule

Comments

• 3 Likes

  JedediaDaniel Member

  November 2014 15 karma

  I was having a really difficult time with this as well, but then something stared to click for me. Hopefully I can explain it properly.
  
  When dealing with an 'or' rule, we need to have at least one of the options included... so, for example:
  /J -> F
  
  /J, then we must select F to have one of the options included.
  J, then we are free to included F or /F, because we have already included one of our options, the other one may join, or not - the rule floats away
  
  /F, then we must include J to have one of our options included.
  F, then we are free to included J or /J, because we have already included one of our options, the other one may join, or not - the rule floats away.
  
  For the 'not both' rule, we can only have up to one of the options included...
  So, for example:
  J -> /F
  
  J, then we must select /F, as we have no more room to fit F
  /J, then we may select F or /F, as we can either fill it, or leave it empty - our rule floats away
  
  F, then we must select /J, as we have no more room to fit J
  /F, then we may select F or /F, as we can either fill it or leave it empty - our rules floats away.
  
  I think the biggest breakthrough for me was that 'or' rules imply a minimum of one, while 'not both' implies a maximum of one.
  
  Hopefully that was of some help - if not, Sorry!
• LSATPWNAGE Alum Member

  November 2014 43 karma

  Awesome! Thanks. Especially the last bit about min/max helped a lot.