LSAT Logic Games - How to diagram "or" conditional statements

In this article, I'm answering your questions about diagramming "or" conditional statements. First question's from Nadia: On the LSAT, is "or" inclusive or exclusive? On the LSAT, the word "or" is inclusive, meaning it allows the possibility of having both (not just one). And sometimes, just to mess with you, the LSAT says, "one, the other, or both" - even when it's not NECESSARY to say both. (Click here to see how to diagram rules saying "before or after, but NOT both.") For example, take the following rule from PrepTest 33 (December 2000), Game 2 (birds in the forest): If J, M, or both are in the forest, then so are H.

It could have said: If J or M are in the forest, then so are H. instead, and the meaning would have been the same: In other words, saying "or both" in the original is unnecessary. (You can see how I diagram this ENTIRE game, step-by-step, in this article and this video.) *** Next question's from James: If a statement said the following: To graduate from law school you must be both smart and resourceful. Therefore, the contrapositive of the statement would be: If you are not smart or not resourceful then you will not graduate from law school. Can you explain the and --> or part? I am getting a little confused (thinking too much about the or), what if someone is smart but not resourceful, can they not graduated then? Any explanation/examples would be appreciated. Break the statement into two parts, and things get clearer REAL fast: If graduate -> smart If graduate -> resourceful Contrapositives: If not smart -> not graduate If not resourceful -> not graduate Graduating requires both, so...if you lack one, the other, or both, then you cannot graduate. *** Bonus question from Rachel: What about dealing with words like "only" and "until?" the only = sufficient indicator only if / only when = necessary indicator until / except / unless / without = tricky indicator words 2 main ways to translate these tricky indicator words: Method 1.) when you see these words, replace them with the phrase "if not" Method 2.) take them as introducing the necessary condition (whatever immediately follows is the necessary condition), then take the other part of the sentence, negate it, and then that part will be the sufficient condition for example: "No X until Y" can be translated... Using Method #1: No X if not Y = If not Y, not X Using Method #2: If X then Y. I personally prefer the 2nd way, but both are TOTALLY fine ways to deal with these annoying words. Next time, I'll share some tips on dealing with sufficient and necessary conditions with some examples to make it REAL. (These DEFINITELY won't be your typical boring ones about the LSAT, Harvard Law, and Elle Woods.) Stay tuned, LSAT-Obsessed Steve Recommended Resources: 1. LSAT Courses The best of my LSAT material with exclusive access to attend my Live Online LSAT Master Classes + Q&As, and on-demand video lessons you can watch anytime. Plus, LSAT study plans to keep you on track. Save hundreds of dollars with an LSAT course package. 2. Logic Games Explanations The explanations that should have come with the LSAT. These tell you why the wrong answers are wrong, why the right answers are right, and the easiest way to get the correct answer. 3. Mastering LSAT Logic Games This guide to Logic Games is by a former writer of actual LSAT questions! Enough said.

Free Stuff | YouTube | Podcast | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Books | Courses