reop6780 wrote:I have some difficuliy in regard with the language of the game set.
The very last rule which states that the third site dates from a more recenet century than EITHER the first site OR the fourth.
Since it did not say the 3rd site is more recent than BOTH the 1st AND the 4th, I only assumed that the 3rd site cannot date from 8th century.
However, according to the explanation on pg 156, "the first and fourth sites cannot date from the 10th century."
How can you infer this when it is possible that the 3rd site is more recent than only one of two sites, the 1st and the fourth?
- for example, the 1st: 8c the 3rd: 9c, the 4th: 10c .
The rule states that the 3rd is more recent than either one of them not necessarily both.
Additionally, when it says in the stimulus that "each dates from the 8th, 9th, or 10th century," it does not necessarily mean that at least one of ALL (8,9,10) must be present, does it?
(It's always confusing)
Especially in the context here, I believe that "A is more [whatever] than either B or C is" tends to mean that A has more (of whatever) than BOTH B and C. "Either/or" is confusing because usually, on the LSAT, "Either A or B", as in conditional reasoning, tends to mean "A, or B, or both". But to say "A is more [whatever] than either B or C is" tends to mean, again, that A has more than both of the other folks.
An example: "Bob is taller than either Joe or Bill." In common parlance, that would usually mean that Bob is taller than both of them. It would be strange if someone meant, "Bob is taller than Joe, but not Bill", since he could just have said "Bob is taller than Joe". Does that make sense?
Also, "each dates from the 8th, 9th, or 10th century" may not *logically* imply that at least one of each of those centuries has to be present, that is true. (Though, don't be surprised if each one appears.)
Hope this helps,