And/or

For And/Or usage in logic and computer science, plase see article on logical disjunction.

---

The phrase and/or is used to indicate that any of the stated cases may occur. For example, the sentence "Jim will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although Jim may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are not necessarily exclusive; Jim may eat one, two, or all three of the choices.

As the phrase has grown in usage in recent years, from business jargon to legal writing and popular culture, it has likewise come under criticism. Some grammarians have pointed out that the phrase is redundant, since the word "or" logically and grammatically encompasses the same meaning. That is, the sentence "Jim will eat cake, pie, or brownies" still permits Jim to eat one, two, or all three of the choices.

Others argue {cn} that in a very legalistic society, the word "or" is no longer sufficiently clear, because it may indicate choices that are mutually exclusive (see exclusive disjunction). The word "and" by itself is of no help here, as it requires that all of the conditions are met; in other words, that Jim will eat all three of the choices. Thus, they argue, "and/or" serves the function of clearly indicating that every case is available and that they may be combined.

Such arguments fail to take into account, however, that the word "either" should be used in cases where it is not clear if "or" is designating mutual exclusivity or not. "When using either as a conjunction, you can apply it to more than two elements in a series." Thus, "Jim will eat either cake, pie, or brownies" appropriately indicates that the choices are mutually exclusive. If the function of "or" is clear from the context, it is not necessary to use "either" as a conjunction. Consider the following exchange:

Kim: You may select one item for desert. Jim: What are my choices? Kim: You can eat cake, pie, or brownies.

The phrase has come under considerable criticism in the legal profession in both American and British courts. Judges have called it a "freakish fad," an "accuracy-destroying symbol," and "meaningless." The Wisconson Supreme Court referred to it as "that befuddling, nameless thing, that Janus-faced verbal monstrosity." Perhaps most crushing of all, the Kentucky Supreme Court said it was a "much-condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers." It is particularly damaging in legal writing, in addition to being generally sloppy writing, because a bad faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits him, the "and" or the "or."