Preptest 21 Section 2 #20 Forum

[sdwarrior403]

I do not understand why the first sentence does not allow for the possibility for both to take place. Can it not be true that she does the first option and then quits her job afterward?

Also, is there a difference between these two statements..

A or B

A or else B

[BlaqBella]

I do not understand why the first sentence does not allow for the possibility for both to take place. Can it not be true that she does the first option and then quits her job afterward?

Also, is there a difference between these two statements..

A or B

A or else B

Tricky question but I love sufficient assumption questions. I was under the impression both can take place but according to the sentence that follows, if she does not have an offer, she isn't taken either.

My understanding is "either or" can mean "either, or...or both" unless specifically stated "not both".

And yes, there is a difference:

A or B = A, B or A and B

A or else B = If not A then B; if not B then A

[sdwarrior403]

I do not understand why the first sentence does not allow for the possibility for both to take place. Can it not be true that she does the first option and then quits her job afterward?

Also, is there a difference between these two statements..

A or B

A or else B

Tricky question but I love sufficient assumption questions. I was under the impression both can take place but according to the sentence that follows, if she does not have an offer, she isn't taken either.

My understanding is "either or" can mean "either, or...or both" unless specifically stated "not both".

And yes, there is a difference:

A or B = A, B or A and B

A or else B = If not A then B; if not B then A

What you have stated about those two statements does not imply that there is a difference. The part after the equals sign in the second statement, "If not A then B..." also applies to the first statement. It also does not rule out that both A and B can be selected. I would like to know if stating A or else B allows for both to be selected, which I would assume it does.

In regards to this question, I would appreciate it if someone can tell me where I am wrong.

LA or Q --> F
~TFO --> TALA
----------------
Q --> TFO

I then do a little flipping to line up conditions to further see the gap.

LA or Q --> F
~TALA --> TFO
----------------
Q --> TFO

The gap that is missing is F --> ~TALA

Notation Key:

LA = Leave of Absence, Q = Quit, F = Fellowship, TALA, Techno Allows Leave of Absence, TFO = Techno Finds Out

This answer choice is not available. Of course there could be other ways to make this argument sufficiently valid. The credited answer of TALA ---> LA must have it be the case that this is not a "or both" situation. I would like to know why it is the case that Ann could not take a leave of absence and then quit the job afterwards, which would be both.

[BlaqBella]

I do not understand why the first sentence does not allow for the possibility for both to take place. Can it not be true that she does the first option and then quits her job afterward?

Also, is there a difference between these two statements..

A or B

A or else B

Tricky question but I love sufficient assumption questions. I was under the impression both can take place but according to the sentence that follows, if she does not have an offer, she isn't taken either.

My understanding is "either or" can mean "either, or...or both" unless specifically stated "not both".

And yes, there is a difference:

A or B = A, B or A and B

A or else B = If not A then B; if not B then A

What you have stated about those two statements does not imply that there is a difference. The part after the equals sign in the second statement, "If not A then B..." also applies to the first statement. It also does not rule out that both A and B can be selected. I would like to know if stating A or else B allows for both to be selected, which I would assume it does.

In regards to this question, I would appreciate it if someone can tell me where I am wrong.

LA or Q --> F
~TFO --> TALA
----------------
Q --> TFO

I then do a little flipping to line up conditions to further see the gap.

LA or Q --> F
~TALA --> TFO
----------------
Q --> TFO

The gap that is missing is F --> ~TALA

Notation Key:

LA = Leave of Absence, Q = Quit, F = Fellowship, TALA, Techno Allows Leave of Absence, TFO = Techno Finds Out

This answer choice is not available. Of course there could be other ways to make this argument sufficiently valid. The credited answer of TALA ---> LA must have it be the case that this is not a "or both" situation. I would like to know why it is the case that Ann could not take a leave of absence and then quit the job afterwards, which would be both.

Q ---> ~LA
~Q ---> LA
Q or LA ---> OF
~FO ---> ALA
FO ---> ~ALA
----------------
Q ---> FO

Notation Key: Q - quit her job, LA - take a leave of absence, OF - offered a fellowship, FO - Technocomp finds out she was offered fellowship, ALA - allow a leave of absence

The first two statements stem from the fact that she will quit her job or else take a leave of absence. The third statement comes from the fact that she would not do either unless she were offered a fellowship. The last two stem from the fact that if they don't find out, they'll allow a leave of absence, but not otherwise.

For this sufficient assumption question, we need to use the two relevant premises (which we can identify because of the matching terms in the conclusion).

Q ---> ~LA

~ALA ---> FO (contrapositive of 4th statement above)
---------------
Q ---> FO

The gap being ~LA ---> ~ALA or in the contrapositive form

ALA ---> LA, perfectly expressed in the correct answer choice.

[sdwarrior403]

Q ---> ~LA
~Q ---> LA
Q or LA ---> OF
~FO ---> ALA
FO ---> ~ALA
----------------
Q ---> FO

Notation Key: Q - quit her job, LA - take a leave of absence, OF - offered a fellowship, FO - Technocomp finds out she was offered fellowship, ALA - allow a leave of absence

The first two statements stem from the fact that she will quit her job or else take a leave of absence. The third statement comes from the fact that she would not do either unless she were offered a fellowship. The last two stem from the fact that if they don't find out, they'll allow a leave of absence, but not otherwise.

For this sufficient assumption question, we need to use the two relevant premises (which we can identify because of the matching terms in the conclusion).

Q ---> ~LA

~ALA ---> FO (contrapositive of 4th statement above)
---------------
Q ---> FO

The gap being ~LA ---> ~ALA or in the contrapositive form

ALA ---> LA, perfectly expressed in the correct answer choice.

You did not respond to the issue of Ann being able to take a leave of absence and return, and then quit, which would mean she can do both.

Also, you may want to stop copying somebody else's work without citing it. http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q20 ... f2d74b0119

[BlaqBella]

Q ---> ~LA
~Q ---> LA
Q or LA ---> OF
~FO ---> ALA
FO ---> ~ALA
----------------
Q ---> FO

Notation Key: Q - quit her job, LA - take a leave of absence, OF - offered a fellowship, FO - Technocomp finds out she was offered fellowship, ALA - allow a leave of absence

The first two statements stem from the fact that she will quit her job or else take a leave of absence. The third statement comes from the fact that she would not do either unless she were offered a fellowship. The last two stem from the fact that if they don't find out, they'll allow a leave of absence, but not otherwise.

For this sufficient assumption question, we need to use the two relevant premises (which we can identify because of the matching terms in the conclusion).

Q ---> ~LA

~ALA ---> FO (contrapositive of 4th statement above)
---------------
Q ---> FO

The gap being ~LA ---> ~ALA or in the contrapositive form

ALA ---> LA, perfectly expressed in the correct answer choice.

You did not respond to the issue of Ann being able to take a leave of absence and return, and then quit, which would mean she can do both.

Also, you may want to stop copying somebody else's work without citing it. http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q20 ... f2d74b0119

The fact is she cannot do both. A or else B is not the same as A or B!

[sdwarrior403]

The fact is she cannot do both. A or else B is not the same as A or B!

I believe saying A or else B is indicating that if A is not done, then B will be done. This is the exact same logic behind saying A or B. If A is not done, then B will be done.

Tell me how it is that you know A or else B is not inclusive of both.

[BlaqBella]

The fact is she cannot do both. A or else B is not the same as A or B!

I believe saying A or else B is indicating that if A is not done, then B will be done. This is the exact same logic behind saying A or B. If A is not done, then B will be done.

Tell me how it is that you know A or else B is not inclusive of both.

A or B is actually saying, A OR B OR A AND B.

A or else B is saying that if not one, then the other and there can only be one. Both A and B are mutually exclusive in "A or else B". The introduction of "else" is what changes this.

It is not true that both can occur simultaneously and it is not true that neither can occur.

ETA: I kindly suggest you pick up a book on formal and informal logic. It has personally helped me and could also help you too.

[sdwarrior403]

Dont be mad you were caught copying and pasting.

I am well aware of what or means. I simply want to know about the or else factor. I will have to wait for another opinion. Perhaps you could post a link to backup your claim. I honestly want to know.

[BlaqBella]

Dont be mad you were caught copying and pasting.

I am well aware of what or means. I simply want to know about the or else factor. I will have to wait for another opinion. Perhaps you could post a link to backup your claim. I honestly want to know.

Why don't you just google what I wrote and site the link for us all?

I have explained to you what "or else" means. More importantly, no link is needed to back up what I wrote. Perhaps it will be in your best interest to take a philosophy class/prep course/or read up on formal/informal logic material to fully comprehend what "or else" means in the context of logic.

Happy studying! Toodles.

[sdwarrior403]

Dont be mad you were caught copying and pasting.

I am well aware of what or means. I simply want to know about the or else factor. I will have to wait for another opinion. Perhaps you could post a link to backup your claim. I honestly want to know.

Why don't you just google what I wrote and site the link for us all?

I have explained to you what "or else" means. More importantly, no link is needed to back up what I wrote. Perhaps it will be in your best interest to take a philosophy class/prep course/or read up on formal/informal logic material to fully comprehend what "or else" means in the context of logic.

Happy studying! Toodles.

I have taken a logic course. I have taken a philosophy course. I think you are the one that needs to either take one or retake one if one has been taken.

http://www.thelogician.net/5b_ruminate/ ... ter_04.htm

Go to section 7. And read this:

This indefinite sense is somewhat narrowed down by making the distinction between ‘exclusive’ disjunction, for which the form “P or else Q …” may be agreed, and ‘inclusive’ disjunction, for which the form “P and/or Q…” may be agreed.

Thus, “P or Q…” may be taken to formally mean: “P or else Q…” and/or “P and/or Q…” is/are true. The exclusive and inclusive forms of disjunctions are thus more specific and explicit; and each of them implies the more generic and indefinite form.

I will await your response.

[North]

Why don't you just google what I wrote and site the link for us all? :

He did. I think it's hilarious that you took the time to change a few words around -- DAT High School plagiarism style (made even more hilarious by your challenge to us to Google what you wrote -- so confident!). Just own up to it, kiddo. Nobody would have cared if you hadn't gone immediately into backed-into-a-corner attack mode. Calm the fuck down and eat your crow.

[BlaqBella]

Why don't you just google what I wrote and site the link for us all? :

He did. I think it's hilarious that you took the time to change a few words around -- DAT High School plagiarism style (made even more hilarious by your challenge to us to Google what you wrote -- so confident!). Just own up to it, kiddo. Nobody would have cared if you hadn't gone immediately into backed-into-a-corner attack mode. Calm the fuck down and eat your crow.

I'm actually not in attack mode. But seeing how the OP is still requiring explanation of "or else" and you've entered this thread, perhaps you can add your contribution outside of the above?

KTHXBAI.

[sdwarrior403]

Why don't you just google what I wrote and site the link for us all? :

He did. I think it's hilarious that you took the time to change a few words around -- DAT High School plagiarism style (made even more hilarious by your challenge to us to Google what you wrote -- so confident!). Just own up to it, kiddo. Nobody would have cared if you hadn't gone immediately into backed-into-a-corner attack mode. Calm the fuck down and eat your crow.

I'm actually not in attack mode. But seeing how the OP is still requiring explanation of "or else" and you've entered this thread, perhaps you can add your contribution outside of the above?

KTHXBAI.

BlaqBella,

I really do appreciate your responses to my questions because no one else has done so. I do disagree with your opinion. I did google it and posted one source above. I did not find anything related to our disagreement in my initial, but thorough, google search.

[BlaqBella]

Why don't you just google what I wrote and site the link for us all? :

He did. I think it's hilarious that you took the time to change a few words around -- DAT High School plagiarism style (made even more hilarious by your challenge to us to Google what you wrote -- so confident!). Just own up to it, kiddo. Nobody would have cared if you hadn't gone immediately into backed-into-a-corner attack mode. Calm the fuck down and eat your crow.

I'm actually not in attack mode. But seeing how the OP is still requiring explanation of "or else" and you've entered this thread, perhaps you can add your contribution outside of the above?

KTHXBAI.

BlaqBella,

I really do appreciate your responses to my questions because no one else has done so. I do disagree with your opinion. I did google it and posted one source above. I did not find anything related to our disagreement in my initial, but thorough, google search.

I believe my MLSAT LR book covers the "or else" aspect of LSAT but as I do not currently have it in my possession I will have to provide their explanation later on.

Oh, and this time, I promise to properly site and provide the page # so as to not be accused of plagiarism, et al.

Also feel free to ask the MLSAT tutors on their forum about this...or the other tutors that frequent this site (NYCLSATTUTOR, LsatBlog/Steve Schwartz, etc.).

[TylerJonesMPLS]

The first sentence tells us that, if Ann were offered a one-year fellowship, she would either take a leave of absence and return in a year or else quit her job. Now when does Ann make the decision to either take a leave of absence & return in a year or else quit her job? She must make the decision when (or a little after) she is offered the one-year fellowship. So her one year leave of absence, if she gets one, will run concurrently with her one year fellowship. And if she does not get a one year leave of absence, she will quit, so that she can take up the one-year fellowship. In both of these cases, we are talking about the same year. But Ann cannot both take a leave of absence AND quit in the same time period. Of course, as you say, Ann could take the leave of absence for one year and then quit. But what Ann will do after her one-year fellowship is never discussed in the passage/stimulus. So, in the context, “or else” in this instance must be used in the sense of exclusive or: Ann can take the leave of absence in the next year, or Ann can quit next year, but not both.

By the way, when I googled I also found the Avi Sion discussion that you cite, but I was under the impression that he was arguing that ‘or else’ is exclusive or, while you are arguing that ‘or else’ is inclusive or. (I don’t know who Avi Sion is, or whether he is a reliable source or not, so I didn’t quote him.)