We show that Simplification of Disjunctive antecedents is not a scalar inference. The argument exploits information-sensitive modals, like epistemic "probably" and deliberative "ought". When items of this sort are the main modal of a conditional, we can have that: (i) If A or B, Mod C is true; (ii) the basic meaning computed via classical semantics for conditionals and disjunction is false. This combination is impossible on any scalar account of Simplification: scalar inferences are strengthenings, hence the output of scalar inferences must entail the basic meaning of a sentence. We suggest an account of Simplification based on alternative semantics, and show how this account can be made compatible with old and new counterexamples to Simplification.
Complex sentential operators refute unrestricted Simplification of Disjunctive Antecedents