I am working on the Drill It Questions in Chapter 4 of the LG Strategy Guide. Numbers 3, 5, & 6 all have the wording "or else" instead of either or and I don't know if I am thinking too much about it... but I feel like it means something different than either/or.
Based on the solutions, I see the difference...but wonder if someone can explain a little more about the actual meaning of "or else" vs "either/or"
Thank you!
LSAT Forum
5 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- AshleighT608
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 2
- Joined: February 23rd, 2018
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3804
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Or else vs either/or
Hey-hey.
Firstly, I've never LSAT use the term "or else". If they have, it's been crazy infrequent. So most of this is a moot point.
Secondly, there's no difference between saying "either X or Y" and saying "X or else Y". What you need to be caring and focusing on is the part of those three rules that specifies but not both.
The concept of "or" on LSAT is by default, INCLUSIVE.
When we say, "If X, then Y or Z" ... we mean that when X occurs, at least one of Y or Z must occur. It's fine if they both occur (inclusive).
Often in real life we are faced with EXCLUSIVE uses of "or".
For the next two hours, Paul can either go to see the new Star Wars movie or he can go visit Nanna at her nursing home.
We know from context that we're speaking about something exclusive there. He can't see Star Wars (at a theater) AND ALSO go visit Nanna at her nursing home.
Other times in real life we interpret "or" to be INCLUSIVE.
To see a rated R movie, you either need to be 17 yrs old or with your parent/guardian.
We know from our common sense that the movie theater would let you see this movie if you're 17 years old AND ALSO going to see it with your parent/guardian.
-----------------
Unless otherwise stated or implied, we're supposed to interpret "or" on LSAT in the INCLUSIVE sense, meaning "at least one of these conditions must hold".
But modern Ordering games like to give us BUT NOT BOTH rules. These are a little trickier than your average rule.
If we say "P is before M or before J, but not both", then it would be a mistake to only write
P - M or P - J
In the world where P - M, the "but not both" part of the rule forbids us from having P - J. If we can' have P - J, then we must have J - P.
So in the world where P - M, we know we have J - P, and we can write that as J - P - M.
In the world where P - J, the "but not both" tells us that P can NOT be before M, so we'd have to have M - P - J.
MORAL TO THE STORY:
no difference between X or Y, either X or Y, X or else Y.
big difference when any of those rules add on the "but not both" restriction.
Firstly, I've never LSAT use the term "or else". If they have, it's been crazy infrequent. So most of this is a moot point.
Secondly, there's no difference between saying "either X or Y" and saying "X or else Y". What you need to be caring and focusing on is the part of those three rules that specifies but not both.
The concept of "or" on LSAT is by default, INCLUSIVE.
When we say, "If X, then Y or Z" ... we mean that when X occurs, at least one of Y or Z must occur. It's fine if they both occur (inclusive).
Often in real life we are faced with EXCLUSIVE uses of "or".
For the next two hours, Paul can either go to see the new Star Wars movie or he can go visit Nanna at her nursing home.
We know from context that we're speaking about something exclusive there. He can't see Star Wars (at a theater) AND ALSO go visit Nanna at her nursing home.
Other times in real life we interpret "or" to be INCLUSIVE.
To see a rated R movie, you either need to be 17 yrs old or with your parent/guardian.
We know from our common sense that the movie theater would let you see this movie if you're 17 years old AND ALSO going to see it with your parent/guardian.
-----------------
Unless otherwise stated or implied, we're supposed to interpret "or" on LSAT in the INCLUSIVE sense, meaning "at least one of these conditions must hold".
But modern Ordering games like to give us BUT NOT BOTH rules. These are a little trickier than your average rule.
If we say "P is before M or before J, but not both", then it would be a mistake to only write
P - M or P - J
In the world where P - M, the "but not both" part of the rule forbids us from having P - J. If we can' have P - J, then we must have J - P.
So in the world where P - M, we know we have J - P, and we can write that as J - P - M.
In the world where P - J, the "but not both" tells us that P can NOT be before M, so we'd have to have M - P - J.
MORAL TO THE STORY:
no difference between X or Y, either X or Y, X or else Y.
big difference when any of those rules add on the "but not both" restriction.
-
- AlexY297
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 32
- Joined: September 26th, 2018
Re: Or else vs either/or
Hi so I encountered the Drill It: Ordering Mismatch Setups p. 256 in Manhattan Logic Games book Chapter 6 Ordering Twists
For Practice #1 Five political candidates H J K L N...
For one of the rules it says " Either Langston or Hughes must be the last candidate to appear."
-Also it says on the solution part that "It is easy to assume that L or H must go on Sunday but there could be an "X" there.
I thought that for Either Or Statements, it is either L or H or both ?
Thank you, Alex
For Practice #1 Five political candidates H J K L N...
For one of the rules it says " Either Langston or Hughes must be the last candidate to appear."
-Also it says on the solution part that "It is easy to assume that L or H must go on Sunday but there could be an "X" there.
I thought that for Either Or Statements, it is either L or H or both ?
Thank you, Alex
-
- AlexY297
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 32
- Joined: September 26th, 2018
Re: Or else vs either/or
Also in the solutions section p.258 for #3 A classical guitarist drill it problem.. Why is there a NO for the out for songs not playing? Is that mistake? Or maybe to indicate that no other songs will be playing and that one songs playing at a time? Thank you, Alex
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3804
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
Re: Or else vs either/or
Sorry this slipped through the cracks, just seeing it now.
On pg. 256, that game says that we're placing 5 people onto 7 days.
M - Tu - Wed - Th - Fri - Sat - Sun
The "last candidate to appear" doesn't necessary mean "They appear on Sunday". It just means "they appear after the other four candidates".
You could have
M: H
Tu: N
Wed: J
Th:
Fri: K
Sat: L
Sun:
We are satisfying the rule that either L or H is the last to appear. Does that make sense?
On pg. 258, the "No" (I believe) is just there to name the Out column.
It could have interchangeably said "Out" instead of "No".
Most of us probably wouldn't even bother to label that column, because we would just understand it was the OUT. I'm not sure why they bothered writing that or chose that word. It was essentially saying "NO, these songs aren't getting played".
On pg. 256, that game says that we're placing 5 people onto 7 days.
M - Tu - Wed - Th - Fri - Sat - Sun
The "last candidate to appear" doesn't necessary mean "They appear on Sunday". It just means "they appear after the other four candidates".
You could have
M: H
Tu: N
Wed: J
Th:
Fri: K
Sat: L
Sun:
We are satisfying the rule that either L or H is the last to appear. Does that make sense?
On pg. 258, the "No" (I believe) is just there to name the Out column.
It could have interchangeably said "Out" instead of "No".
Most of us probably wouldn't even bother to label that column, because we would just understand it was the OUT. I'm not sure why they bothered writing that or chose that word. It was essentially saying "NO, these songs aren't getting played".
5 posts Page 1 of 1