little water or few services

[manhhiep2509]

Hello.

In question 82 of verbal review 2, OG explanation says that "the areas described would suffer from both little water and few services at the same time, so the correct conjunction is and, not or".

The below is modified version of the sentence:

"the new law permits fewer people to live in areas where there are little water or few services.

I know that "and" and "or" convey different meanings, but I do not see any illogical meaning if we use "or" instead of "and".

Please explain what the illogical meaning is if we use "or".
---------

is the below sentence redundant? I think "there are" and "available" convey the same meaning.

"there are little water and few services available"

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Hello.

In question 82 of verbal review 2, OG explanation says that "the areas described would suffer from both little water and few services at the same time, so the correct conjunction is and, not or".

The below is modified version of the sentence:

"the new law permits fewer people to live in areas where there are little water or few services.

I know that "and" and "or" convey different meanings, but I do not see any illogical meaning if we use "or" instead of "and".

Please explain what the illogical meaning is if we use "or".

These three sentences all mean the same thing:
We have no coffee and no tea.
We have no coffee or tea.
We have neither coffee nor tea.
If necessary, just memorize this -- "no x or y" is the same as "no x and no y". Both of them mean that we're completely lacking both things.
If you think about the logic of that one for a second, though, it should make intuitive sense. I.e., "no x or y" is like being asked "Do you have x or y?" and saying no. "No x and no y" is like being asked, separately, "Do you have x?" and "Do you have y?", and saying no to both.

No coffee or no tea would also make sense, although its meaning would be different: this time, if we lack one of those things, the statement is still true.
E.g.,
Sherry will not date a man with no job or no life plan. --> She wants a man with both. If a man has just one, but not the other, Sherry won't date him.

On the other hand, no x and y is meaningless. It just doesn't make sense.
If you actually want to say, specifically, that someone HAS "y" but LACKS "x", then you wouldn't write that as "no x and y". You'd write that in a more direct way, such as with y but without x or has y but lacks x.

[RonPurewal]

is the below sentence redundant?

Rephrasing your question: "Is the OG's correct answer redundant?"
No.
It's the OG's correct answer.

Do not question the official correct answers. Why waste your time?

I think "there are" and "available" convey the same meaning.

No.
"There is/are" just means that something exists. "Available" means that people have ready access to it.
E.g., there is lots and lots of oil in Alaska, but it is certainly not all available.

Remember, "redundant" is limited to words or phrases that carry exactly the same meaning.
E.g., if I said "available xxxxxx to which people have access", or "there are xxxxxxx things that exist", then those would be redundant.

[manhhiep2509]

Hello.

In question 82 of verbal review 2, OG explanation says that "the areas described would suffer from both little water and few services at the same time, so the correct conjunction is and, not or".

The below is modified version of the sentence:

"the new law permits fewer people to live in areas where there are little water or few services.

I know that "and" and "or" convey different meanings, but I do not see any illogical meaning if we use "or" instead of "and".

Please explain what the illogical meaning is if we use "or".

These three sentences all mean the same thing:
We have no coffee and no tea.
We have no coffee or tea.
We have neither coffee nor tea.
If necessary, just memorize this -- "no x or y" is the same as "no x and no y". Both of them mean that we're completely lacking both things.
If you think about the logic of that one for a second, though, it should make intuitive sense. I.e., "no x or y" is like being asked "Do you have x or y?" and saying no. "No x and no y" is like being asked, separately, "Do you have x?" and "Do you have y?", and saying no to both.

No coffee or no tea would also make sense, although its meaning would be different: this time, if we lack one of those things, the statement is still true.
E.g.,
Sherry will not date a man with no job or no life plan. --> She wants a man with both. If a man has just one, but not the other, Sherry won't date him.

On the other hand, no x and y is meaningless. It just doesn't make sense.
If you actually want to say, specifically, that someone HAS "y" but LACKS "x", then you wouldn't write that as "no x and y". You'd write that in a more direct way, such as with y but without x or has y but lacks x.

Thank you Ron.

I understand your explanation, but I cannot apply it to solve my question. The sentence in my first post is not similar to choice A in the OG question -- choice A has "little water and services" and my sentence has "little water and fewer services"--, so I changed it to match choice A.

"the new law permits fewer people to live in areas where there are little water or services.

"little water or services" is similar to "no water or services" in terms of structure. According to your explanation, it is correct.
But, OG says "Logically, the areas described would suffer from both little water and few services at the same time, so the correct conjunction is and, not or."

To me, the explanation seems to assume that the areas must suffer both problems, i.e. little water and fewer services, and it is illogical if the areas suffer only one of the two problems.

So, what is wrong with the use of "or" in the sentence even though it does not contradict to your explanation?

Thank you.

[tim]

It is very unclear from your post what sentence you would like us to analyze exactly. Is it the one in the third paragraph of your most recent post? If so, I think you have already answered your question: the OG says it is illogical to set these up as an "or" situation, and that is true, and you have quoted that explanation. Do you disagree with the fact that it is illogical to set these up with an "or"?

[manhhiep2509]

It is very unclear from your post what sentence you would like us to analyze exactly. Is it the one in the third paragraph of your most recent post? If so, I think you have already answered your question: the OG says it is illogical to set these up as an "or" situation, and that is true, and you have quoted that explanation. Do you disagree with the fact that it is illogical to set these up with an "or"?

In my first post, I do not question the fact it is illogical to set these up with an "or", but I seek an answer for my question, i.e. why using "or" is illogical.

Ron says it is correct if we use "no X or Y", but OG says that "little X or Y" is illogical and that "little X and Y" correct.
So, until now I have yet to find the answer for my question.

[ramendra.awesome]

In my first post, I do not question the fact it is illogical to set these up with an "or", but I seek an answer for my question, i.e. why using "or" is illogical.

Ron says it is correct if we use "no X or Y", but OG says that "little X or Y" is illogical and that "little X and Y" correct.
So, until now I have yet to find the answer for my question.

First of all in question 82, there is no option which uses 'or', while using correct adjectives for both water and services.

few services or little available water is available. (no such option is present).

Second if it had been, an option then we would have to pick between 'and' and 'or'. In that case 'and' would have been a better option because in that case, whole scenario would have changed.

[RonPurewal]

Ron says it is correct if we use "no X or Y", but OG says that "little X or Y" is illogical and that "little X and Y" correct.
So, until now I have yet to find the answer for my question.

The problem there doesn't involve the combination of "little" and "or".
Little X or Y is equivalent to little X and little Y. If one of these works, so does the other.

The problem here is that neither of these constructions makes any sense, because you can't have "little services" -- it would be "few services" instead.