without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

kky215
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 2:51 pm

without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby kky215 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:32 am

does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?

OsaroLJ
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby OsaroLJ » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:46 am

kky215 wrote:does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?


No it doesn't. You have to negate one to get the other. They aren't synonymous.

drewmm
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby drewmm » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:20 am

OsaroLJ wrote:
kky215 wrote:does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?


No it doesn't. You have to negate one to get the other. They aren't synonymous.


Huh? I think OP is correct.

"I went to the store without my money or my shopping list." I didn't have my money AND I didn't have my shopping list.

Having some more context might be helpful, since without isn't quite a standard logical operator, but I think you're right.

magickware
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby magickware » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:27 am

Need more context. I have no idea where you might see something like that.

OsaroLJ is likely confusing the OP's statement with conditional logic or something.

kky215
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby kky215 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:53 am

Thanks for the responses guys.

I saw this in PT 65 S4 Q5 LR

"the plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants' legal counsel being present"

I understood it like this:
"the plaintiff has applied to the court to DISALLOW codefendants AND codefendants' legal counsel"

User avatar
Jeffort
Posts: 1896
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:43 pm

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby Jeffort » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:08 am

kky215 wrote:Thanks for the responses guys.

I saw this in PT 65 S4 Q5 LR

"the plaintiff has applied to the court for an order permitting her to question each defendant without their codefendants or their codefendants' legal counsel being present"

I understood it like this:
"the plaintiff has applied to the court to DISALLOW codefendants AND codefendants' legal counsel"


Your understanding of that statement is correct, it means both of them not present in that context.

User avatar
ArtistOfManliness
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:56 pm

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby ArtistOfManliness » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:01 am

kky215 wrote:does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?


Yes.

User avatar
jkhalfa
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:21 am

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby jkhalfa » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:41 am

OsaroLJ wrote:
kky215 wrote:does "without A or B" mean "not A AND not B"?


No it doesn't. You have to negate one to get the other. They aren't synonymous.


You're kinda wrong and kinda right. OP really did just negate one:

"without A or B"

~(A ∨ B) like you said

~A ∧ ~B via DeMorgan's

So OP was correct.

User avatar
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby wtrc » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:06 am

The PT 65 question you are referring to is a confusing one because it doesn't say anything about the defendant's legal counsel. But yeah, Not A or B= Not A and Not B.

OsaroLJ
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:37 pm

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby OsaroLJ » Sat Aug 31, 2013 10:05 pm

Good call. I was thinking about demorgan for some reason.

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: without A or B = not A and not B? correct?????

Postby manofjustice » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:03 am

Better Call Saul!

p.s. OP is right.

Protip. Try to bracket the statements in your mind. As you read and you see the word "without," stop for a moment. Bracket it. Think "the things that follow are not there..." And then look at each thing that follows.

The improper interpretation by which you were likely confused is that the sentence meant "without A" or B, i.e. "either not A, or B."

That's just bad bracketing. It's not syntactical. The sentence would have read "without co-defendant or with co-defendant's counsel." But the sentence doesn't read that way.

Think about how your interpretation would manifest itself in words. It's not JUST logic. It's logic and English.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests