In the body of this guidebook, TI-84 Plus refers to the TI-84 Plus and the TI-84 Plus Silver Edition. All of the instructions and examples in this guidebook also work for the TI-84 Plus. All of the functions of the TI-84 Plus Silver Edition and the TI-84 Plus are the same. Sometimes the full name TI-84 Plus Silver Edition is used to distinguish it from the TI-84 Plus.
Now, is it just me or did that first sentence kinda sum it all up pretty well? I don’t think the other 3 were really necessary.
I see your point with the second and third sentences; they’re additional emphasis to clarify the meaning of the first sentence in particular contexts, which shouldn’t be absolutely necessary, but can be helpful reinforcement if the reader is uncertain about a particular instance.
As I read it, the fourth sentence is sort of a contrapositive(?) of the first: “If we refer to the TI-84 Plus Silver Edition, then what we’re saying does NOT apply to the [regular] TI-84 Plus”
Which leads me to the question, if they’re using the full name of the TI-84 Plus Silver Edition to distinguish it from the TI-84 Plus, how would they refer to the TI-84 Plus to distinguish it from the Silver Edition, if they needed to? The first three sentences don’t allow them to do that with any ordinary phrasing. And presumably they’re not entirely the same, if there’s any reason to distinguish the Silver Edition from the non-Silver edition.
They probably don’t need to. IIRC, the only difference between Plus SE and the Plus version in that Plus SE comes with some extra programs.
It also has more RAM and can make use of interchangeable face plates.
I’d just use the first and third sentences, as the third sentence conveys more explicit information than the first. The second and fourth are redundantly redundant.
Wasn’t “redundant” the Word of the Day yesterday?
No, it was deja vu.
Again?