Edit: Just saw the but notboth. They are not the same thing. not B (A->/B CP ... be
If A is not chosen (/A), now what? Nothing ... free to be chosen or not chosen
If B ... is not chosen (/B), now what? Again, ...
... Just saw the but notboth. They are not the same thing. < ... />
> If A is not chosen (/A), now what? Nothing ... free to be chosen or not chosen
> If ... B is not chosen (/B), now what? Again ... free to be chosen or not to be Chosen.
...
... of the elements in the "notboth" MUST be selected. The initial ... said "A or B, but notboth." Your biconditional would be the ... or B is selected, but notboth." The way it is stated ... or B is selected, but notboth," which renders your explanation accurate ...
... milk or juice, but notboth" is not the same thing as "One ... or juice is selected, but notboth." The former leaves the possibility ... of not having either, and the latter ...
... . The "A or B, but bothboth" is an exclusive or, which ... "A or B, **notboth**" the "exclusive or" not the "inclusive or". I ... A, then not B" and "A or B, but notboth" as separate ... conditions, are not the same thing.
... " in the exclusive arena does not mean at least one because ... was saying is LSAC does not tend to use the terminology ... or B is selected, but notboth." This is because the latter ... than "A or B, but notboth." Anyways, I don't want ...
... the exclusive arena does not mean at least one ... B is selected, but notboth." This is because the ... "A or B, but notboth." Anyways, I don't ... one". "Or, but notboth" means one of the options ... a possibility. If we had "notboth" by itself (without the ...
... to pick one of them, notboth. (Well, you can try saying ... explicitly stated that it's "notboth"). If it says "I'm ... or B or both" unless specifically told "but notboth." I saw once ... in Logic Games that says "or both ...
... for "A or B, but notboth" the possibility of having NONE ... of A or B is not permissible. That's the whole ... least one" is consistent with both exclusive and inclusive or. By ...
... the conclusion and work backwards, not only to identify conclusion that ... match up (different quantifiers, prescriptive vs. not, relative vs. absolute, probabilistic or absolute ... , et cetera). Not only this, starting ...
A or B translates to /A -----> B, or is negate sufficient. The notboth just makes it a biconditional /A B. So that would just be two worlds, A in, B out and B in, A out.
To keep it simple, the biconditional requires A or B to be in, but notboth. The notboth rule could have both out. You can think of it in terms of max out
... But why can't they both use [**chemical fertilizers**] AND ...
(E) describes a "Notboth relationship". (E) is necessary for ... negation of (D) does not wreck the argument. The negation ... ): [**chemical fertilizers**] do not have a destructive effect. Even ...
Actually! FYI for anyone who came into see this question... you can't apply both rules! Use only one of the rules to apply and the remaining variable simply becomes negated!
.
.
Therefore, A or B but notboth
= /A ---> /B
... question... you can't apply both rules! Use only one of ... ; Therefore, A or B but notboth
> = /A ---> /B ... " wrote, "A or B but notboth" = /A B, A /B.
... .
A and B are both in like @akistotle said.
Also both A and B are both out. Both of these ... possibilities are excluded from our "or but notboth" rule ...