Disjunction has played a major role in advancing theories of logic, language, and cognition, featuring as the centerpiece of debates on the origins and development of logical thought. Recent studies have argued that preschool children's comprehension of linguistic disjunction differs from adults in two ways. First, children are more likely to interpret *or* as *and* (conjunctive interpretations); Second, children are more likely to consider a disjunction as inclusive (lack of exclusivity implicatures). We first provide a comprehensive overview of previous developmental studies, showing that conjunctive interpretations are often due to task demands and participants’ application of nonlinguistic strategies. We then provide the results of three studies on adults and preschool children, using binary and ternary forced-choice judgment tasks, as well as quantitative analysis of their spontaneous verbal feedback. We did not find evidence for conjunctive interpretations of disjunction in preschool children, supporting the hypothesis that conjunctive interpretations are due to task demands and application of nonlinguistic strategies. With respect to exclusivity implicatures, forced-choice judgment tasks suggested a tendency in children to accept a disjunction as inclusive more easily than adults. However, the quantitative analysis of children’s spontaneous verbal feedback showed that children were sensitive to the exclusivity implicature of disjunction. More specifically, children explicitly mentioned the word *and* as a better alternative to *or* when both propositions were true, yet did not consider such an infelicitous disjunction "wrong". These results suggest that truth value judgment task alone can underestimate children’s pragmatic competence, and should be accompanied by measures that are more sensitive to pragmatic inferences. Overall, our studies suggest that preschool children’s understanding of logical connectives are much more adult-like than previously considered.