Top Law Schools

I cannot recall which PT this LG question appears in, but that question basically says "G is more expensive than either H or J". From my understanding, G could only be more expensive than either one of these two (H and J), but not both, however, my answer was wrong based on this understanding. That made me wonder what the exact meaning of this statement is. Could it possibly mean "G is more expensive than both H and J ?

I believe you're referring to a situation in which it says "G is more expensive than either H or J but not both" in which case it means "H - G - J" or "J - G - H".

If the LSAT means "but not both" it says it.

Yeah, think of the LSAT as an evil troll trying to mess with you. He always tells the truth, but is sometimes deliberately misleading with it. Simply saying that G is more expensive than either H or J is not a lie, per se. It's just not the whole truth. Noah is right on target. If evil troll means "not both", evil troll has to say "not both."

Evil troll is also active when it comes to quantity words such as "some", "many" etc... Just because troll says that he eats children on some days of the week, that statement does not preclude it from being true that he eats children on all days of the week.

Always be aware of troll language.

Good luck on Saturday.

If the lsat says something like:
"If X occurs then either Y or Z but not both are in"

You want to diagram it in two phrases.

X --> Y or Z
X --> ~Y or ~Z

"but" and "and" are logical equivalents. Thus, their sentence reads "If X occurs, then either Y or z occurs and also Y and Z do not both occur"
You can split the sentence at the "and" and diagram it in two phrases.

Thanks for starting this thread, I have a related question that I hope contributes to the "either or" discussion. In general, I understood that the LSAT considers "either, or" as inclusive meaning that "or both" is implied unless otherwise specified by adding "not both". BUT, while practicing some older games I came across something like this: "Either W or else X is last". Putting the ordering placement aside, is the "or else" synonymous to "not both"?

allysca wrote:Thanks for starting this thread, I have a related question that I hope contributes to the "either or" discussion. In general, I understood that the LSAT considers "either, or" as inclusive meaning that "or both" is implied unless otherwise specified by adding "not both". BUT, while practicing some older games I came across something like this: "Either W or else X is last". Putting the ordering placement aside, is the "or else" synonymous to "not both"?

I don't think so. But, in those cases, its generally implied since either a slot can only hold one element, or each element.