在c#中，我首先想到的是:

public bool lol(int minTrue, params bool[] bools)
{
    return bools.Count( ( b ) => b ) >= minTrue;
}

应该很快。

调用应该是这样的:

lol( 2, true, true, false );

这样，您就将规则(两个必须为真)留给调用者，而不是将它们嵌入到方法中。

在C:

return !!a + !!b + !!c >= 2;

If the goal is to return a bitwise two-out-of-three value for three operands, arithmetic and iterative approaches are apt to be relatively ineffective. On many CPU architectures, a good form would be "return ((a | b) & c) | (a & b);". That takes four boolean operations. On single-accumulator machines (common in small embedded systems) that's apt to take a total of seven instructions per byte. The form "return (a & b) | (a & c) | (b & c);" is perhaps nicer looking, but it would require five boolean operations, or nine instructions per byte on a single-accumulator machine.

顺便提一下，在CMOS逻辑中，计算“不是三选二”需要12个晶体管(相比之下，逆变器需要2个晶体管，双输入NAND或NOR需要4个晶体管，而三输入NAND或NOR需要6个晶体管)。

最明显的改进是:

// There is no point in an else if you already returned.
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    if ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c)) {
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}

然后

// There is no point in an if(true) return true otherwise return false.
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    return ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c));
}

但这些改进都是微不足道的。

最简单的方式(IMO)，不容易混淆，容易阅读:

// Three booleans, check if two or more are true

return ( a && ( b || c ) ) || ( b && c );

这样读起来更好:

if (a) {
    return b || c;
} 
else {
    return b && c;
}