#24 - Journalist: Although a recent poll found that more

[ShannonOh22]

I think I have discovered the reason question 9 on pg. 9-6 of the full course books is so difficult. It hinges on LSAC's use of the term 'either' in the question. Like was explained earlier in the course, either in normal parlance equates to 'either, or' but either in the LSAT world can mean 'one or the other or both'. A very clever separator question. Also, the correct answer choice is worded in such a way as to seem that eligible voters that aren't prepared to join such a party would not therefore be prepared to support it (as the two concepts would otherwise appear linked on a conceptual level) therefore diminishing one both of percentages in question, and making it seem less likely that 30 % could be achieved. Good show!

You have absolutely hit the nail on the head with this explanation mford! Thank you for taking the time to write this out - I was trying to articulate the same point you made, but could not find the words as eloquently as you did. It was exactly the fact that I read "either" in the 2nd to last sentence of the premise ("has at least 30 percent of eligible voters prepared to support it by either joining or donating money") as either one or the other - I failed to take into account LSAT's definition of either, which includes BOTH. You were also spot-on in your analysis of why E does not jump out as the correct choice...E is worded so that it seems to agree with the argument's conclusion (that an education party would not have enough support to be viable) by preying on our automatic concept associations of donation = support = willing to join.

Again, you said it with much more grace than I could muster, so I thank you for your insight!

[James Finch]

Hi Shannon,

You're right that the LSAT uses the most inclusive definition of "either" and "or," which allows for the possibility of all presented options being true. However, the stimulus in this question is assuming that there's almost complete overlap between people who donate to and would join a party--basically the issue is the opposite of what you describe, in that the stimulus is assuming that "either" means "and/both." A bit of quick math would falsify the conclusion: if only a quarter of those willing to donate money to the party were unwilling to join it, the 30% combined threshold would be met.

Hope this helps!

[aghartism]

What's great about this item is how the makers of the LSAT forestall ambiguity in their use of "either...or": they write "by either..." instead of "either by...".

If they had written the latter, instead, the condition would be ambiguous: is it (i) that at least 30 percent of eligible voters must support the party in at least one of two ways, or (ii) that at least 30 percent must support in way 1, or at least 30 percent in way 2? An intonation pattern that would bring out the second reading is one that emphasizes "either" and "or".

But, they did not write that; they wrote "by either", and the item is unquestionably well-constructed.

Solving this item was a good reminder to be vigilant when it comes to interpreting the scope of a disjunction, and to read the stimulus closely.