Top Law Schools

Proof of language proficiency must be provided if one of the following criteria does not apply:
Your first language is English; OR
You completed at least one year of full-time study at an accredited university in a country (or institution) where English is the official language of instruction.

-how do you understand this? I know that I don't need to do an exam, but one of the criteria does not apply to me. But just out of curiosity, I wanted to ask other people how do they understand this, because this is how I understand it: if you are either not a native speaker or even if you are a native speaker but completed less than one year or full time study at an english-speaking university, you have to provide TOEFL or some other proof of english proficiency. Right?? Why is that wrong?

You know when you repeat a word many times over and over again and it looses its' meaning? I've read this statement about thousand times- (~ = negative)
~FLE~ or ~1yFS~ → Proof must be provided

OR means OR.

You have to have one OR the other. There's no "even if" anywhere, you just added that.

CurlyKat wrote:Proof of language proficiency must be provided if one of the following criteria does not apply:
Your first language is English; OR
You completed at least one year of full-time study at an accredited university in a country (or institution) where English is the official language of instruction.

-how do you understand this? I know that I don't need to do an exam, but one of the criteria does not apply to me. But just out of curiosity, I wanted to ask other people how do they understand this, because this is how I understand it: if you are either not a native speaker or even if you are a native speaker but completed less than one year or full time study at an english-speaking university, you have to provide TOEFL or some other proof of english proficiency. Right?? Why is that wrong?

You know when you repeat a word many times over and over again and it looses its' meaning? I've read this statement about thousand times- (~ = negative)
~FLE~ or ~1yFS~ → Proof must be provided

haha

..

sidhesadie wrote:OR means OR.

You have to have one OR the other. There's no "even if" anywhere, you just added that.

Yes, I know that. I added 'even if' to show how I understood the statement in a certain scenario. Because it said 'if one does NOT apply..... (a) OR (b): Therefore, if (a) does apply and (b) doesn't, the person must provide proof of Eng. proficiency. - in reality, however, one of the two does NOT apply- but the proof is not needed. That contradicts the statement. Does it not?

CurlyKat wrote:Proof of language proficiency must be provided if one of the following criteria does not apply

I don't understand the formal logic you posted, but this certainly reads as though both criteria must be met.

YCrevolution wrote:

sidhesadie wrote:OR means OR.

You have to have one OR the other. There's no "even if" anywhere, you just added that.

Moved to Admissions Forum.

You need to provide proof of English language proficieny (although the statement oddly just asks for proof of "language proficiency" and not specifically English), if:
-English is not your first language; OR
-You have not completed one year of full-time study at an accredited university in a country/institution where English is the official language of instruction

Thank you.

ahduth wrote:

CurlyKat wrote:Proof of language proficiency must be provided if one of the following criteria does not apply

I don't understand the formal logic you posted, but this certainly reads as though both criteria must be met.

THANK YOU! That's what I was hoping to see! Glad someone confirmed that for me!!!

You're reading it as 'if either one" of the following criteria does not apply,(ie, both must apply) when it means "if one or the other" does not apply.(one of the following must apply) Hence the OR.

Otherwise, it would say AND.

It's if ONE of the following criteria does not apply. Either A must apply OR B must apply.
If both needed to apply, it would say A must apply AND B must apply.

sidhesadie wrote:You're reading it as 'if either one" of the following criteria does not apply,(ie, both must apply) when it means "if one or the other" does not apply.(one of the following must apply) Hence the OR.

Otherwise, it would say AND.

It's if ONE of the following criteria does not apply. Either A must apply OR B must apply.
If both needed to apply, it would say A must apply AND B must apply.

oh, ok, so i am wrong.. hmm. Thank you for explaining that to me, I'm glad to have that resolved...

Using OP's scheme of abbreviation, the statement is ambiguous between:
(1) ~FLE or ~yFS, then proof must be provided, and
(2) ~(FLE or yFS), then proof must be provided,
which is equivalent to
(3) ~FLE and ~yFS, then proof must be provided.

I am sure they meant (2)/(3). They should have said (3), i.e., Proof of language proficiency must be provided if, English is not your first language and you did not complete at least one year of full-time study at an accredited university in a country where english is the official language of instruction.

Poorly written, no doubt about it.

However, I'd say it's clear from a common sense point of view that they mean you need to provide proof of proficiency only if you fail to meet either one of the criteria. It just wouldn't make sense to require both.

zworykin wrote:Poorly written, no doubt about it.

However, I'd say it's clear from a common sense point of view that they mean you need to provide proof of proficiency only if you fail to meet either one of the criteria. It just wouldn't make sense to require both.

My sense is that this is the sort of thing I'll love to get my hands on in court. Poorly worded schlock whose meaning intelligent people can disagree on? Yummy.