The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express

I am very confused about the contradicting answer choices regarding the "either or" rule. I thought on the LSAT "either or" can mean "One or the other, or possibly both". The only way "either or" would not mean "possibly both" is if outside knowledge clearly dictates that both is not possible. (An example of this is "He is either in New York or LA." You can't be in 2 cities at the same time, so obviously that wouldn't be a possible diagram.) Based on the rule, shouldn't there also be a possible diagram of the policy being unpopular both with the faculty and unpopular with students? And the correct answer is a could be true, not a must be true? How are we supposed to read the tentmakers minds when they are directly contradicting rules they set for the meaning of grammar/phrasing? And honestly, either when used grammatically in the English language usually means one or the other, or when a choice is necessary. I have spent extensive time googling this and I believe the LSAT is breaking grammar/phrasing rules in the English language with the possibly both meaning. For example, houses being on either side of the street means there are houses on both sides of the street. But also, there cannot be simultaneously a singular house that is on both sides of the street. The same with saying "On the airplane my friends sat on either side of me." A singular friend cannot be on both sides of you at the same time. Or the example of "Either candidate would be a good fit for the job," indicates that a choice between the two candidates is needed but they both fit the qualifications. So only one candidate would be selected for the position. Or if someone said "You can have either the chicken dinner or the beef dinner." It usually means you need to select one of the options and both is not a choice.