Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

A simple logical reasoning test

Page 2 of 9 [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

13 Jul 2012, 3:22 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
Teredia wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
Yes, this is relevant to this section.



My dear Queenslander, could you please explain how this belongs in love and dating, or some modd is gunna move it for sure!! ! This Territorian does not see the logical reasoning in placing this here!! !

"x" is probably going to be replaced with "males" or "females", and "y" is going to be replaced with some quality they have which the opposite sex should be mindful of if they want to attract one. Just a guess.


No, I think it probably relates to the big ruckus about generalizations and universal statements. There's been a great deal of "all men/women are like this" flying around.



Blownmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 825
Location: Norway

13 Jul 2012, 3:22 am

Teredia wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
Premise A: Most x are y.
Premise B: C is an x.
Premise C: Therefore, C is a y.

If the word "Therefore" hadn't been there, it could have been "Not enough information to tell", but as it stands now, it is "False", and "Premise C" is actually a conclusion(which makes it false).

Perhaps you really meant for the word "Therefore" to never have been there in the first place?


Thats exactly why i said it was false. I took Philosephy and Reason in grade 12... =/

logic 101 :)


_________________
AQ: 42/50 || SQ: 32/80 || IQ(RPM): 138 || IRI-empathytest(PT/EC/FS/PD): 10(-7)/16(-3)/19(+3)/19(+10) || Alexithymia: 148/185 || Aspie-quiz: AS 133/200, NT 56/200


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

13 Jul 2012, 3:24 am

Hrrm. I just assumed the third premise was a typo, and was meant to be a conclusion. As evidenced by "therefore" and the pattern in the previous two statements.



Last edited by edgewaters on 13 Jul 2012, 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Teredia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 631
Location: Australia

13 Jul 2012, 3:24 am

edgewaters wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
Teredia wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
Yes, this is relevant to this section.



My dear Queenslander, could you please explain how this belongs in love and dating, or some modd is gunna move it for sure!! ! This Territorian does not see the logical reasoning in placing this here!! !

"x" is probably going to be replaced with "males" or "females", and "y" is going to be replaced with some quality they have which the opposite sex should be mindful of if they want to attract one. Just a guess.


No, I think it probably relates to the big ruckus about generalizations and universal statements. There's been a great deal of "all men/women are like this" flying around.


Really? I havent noticed.... haha... prolly best that way...
I am a psychology student whose done some philosephy but this.......... is kinda stupid....



Teredia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 631
Location: Australia

13 Jul 2012, 3:26 am

Blownmind wrote:
Teredia wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
Premise A: Most x are y.
Premise B: C is an x.
Premise C: Therefore, C is a y.

If the word "Therefore" hadn't been there, it could have been "Not enough information to tell", but as it stands now, it is "False", and "Premise C" is actually a conclusion(which makes it false).

Perhaps you really meant for the word "Therefore" to never have been there in the first place?


Thats exactly why i said it was false. I took Philosephy and Reason in grade 12... =/

logic 101 :)
:heart: :heart:



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

13 Jul 2012, 3:28 am

You really shouldn't put "therefore" there, since it makes it ambiguous whether "false" means "A does not imply B" or "B is false". I am assuming the latter, since otherwise the answer "not enough information to tell" is redundant. My answers are:

Not enough information to tell, not enough information to tell, not enough information to tell.

You might quibble with my interpretation of "almost all", but my training in measure theory has probably changed how I think about that particular phrase, since it is a technical term in measure theory. For example, in measure theory it is true that almost all positive integers are positive.



Blownmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 825
Location: Norway

13 Jul 2012, 3:30 am

Teredia wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
Teredia wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
argue argue
argue argue
banter banter
banter banter
:heart: flirt :heart: flirt

:wink: hehe


I really like logic problems like this, give us some more please! :)


_________________
AQ: 42/50 || SQ: 32/80 || IQ(RPM): 138 || IRI-empathytest(PT/EC/FS/PD): 10(-7)/16(-3)/19(+3)/19(+10) || Alexithymia: 148/185 || Aspie-quiz: AS 133/200, NT 56/200


Teredia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 631
Location: Australia

13 Jul 2012, 3:31 am

Declension wrote:
You really shouldn't put "therefore" there, since it makes it ambiguous whether "false" means "A does not imply B" or "B is false". I am assuming the latter, since otherwise the answer "not enough information to tell" is redundant. My answers are:

Not enough information to tell, not enough information to tell, not enough information to tell.

You might quibble with my interpretation of "almost all", but my training in measure theory has probably changed how I think about that particular phrase, since it is a technical term in measure theory. For example, in measure theory it is true that almost all positive integers are positive.


Don't you think its interesting how the rest of us can get grapes out of orange juice?



Teredia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 631
Location: Australia

13 Jul 2012, 3:34 am

Blownmind wrote:
Teredia wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
Teredia wrote:
Blownmind wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
argue argue
argue argue
banter banter
banter banter
:heart: flirt :heart: flirt

:wink: hehe


I really like logic problems like this, give us some more please! :)


i do too. =) makes me wanna go do iq tests... =)

edit: i just saw what you did there.... ROFL



Blownmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 825
Location: Norway

13 Jul 2012, 3:37 am

Teredia wrote:
edit: i just saw what you did there.... ROFL

aww, I had a good laugh now, thanks :) hehe


_________________
AQ: 42/50 || SQ: 32/80 || IQ(RPM): 138 || IRI-empathytest(PT/EC/FS/PD): 10(-7)/16(-3)/19(+3)/19(+10) || Alexithymia: 148/185 || Aspie-quiz: AS 133/200, NT 56/200


DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

13 Jul 2012, 3:38 am

I think op is making a point, and that it's a good point and one that is clear to regular readers who have been around in the last few days
but not particularly accessible for anyone not in that group, and clearly is not an example of perfect communication

It would be kinda nice if we would wait for op to clarify/edit or respond before burying the intent and message of the post under what is essentially an (interesting) critique of the semantics.


_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don?t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth.


Teredia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 631
Location: Australia

13 Jul 2012, 3:39 am

Blownmind wrote:
Teredia wrote:
edit: i just saw what you did there.... ROFL

aww, I had a good laugh now, thanks :) hehe

No problem I am still laughing :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

13 Jul 2012, 3:41 am

Teredia wrote:
Declension wrote:
You really shouldn't put "therefore" there, since it makes it ambiguous whether "false" means "A does not imply B" or "B is false". I am assuming the latter, since otherwise the answer "not enough information to tell" is redundant. My answers are:

Not enough information to tell, not enough information to tell, not enough information to tell.

You might quibble with my interpretation of "almost all", but my training in measure theory has probably changed how I think about that particular phrase, since it is a technical term in measure theory. For example, in measure theory it is true that almost all positive integers are positive.


Don't you think its interesting how the rest of us can get grapes out of orange juice?


I understand how people could come up with different answers, if that's what you mean. For one thing, the phrase "almost all" is ambiguous as to whether or not it excludes "all". For another thing, the questions are phrased badly and seem to create a confusion between whether a statement is true and whether an argument is valid. Those are different concepts.

For example, here is a valid argument whose premises and conclusion are all false:

Quote:
Premise: 2 + 2 = 5.
Conclusion: 2 = 3.


And here is an invalid argument whose premises and conclusion are all true:

Quote:
Premise: Cats are mammals.
Conclusion: Chess is a board game.



Blownmind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 825
Location: Norway

13 Jul 2012, 3:42 am

DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
It would be kinda nice if we would wait for op to clarify/edit or respond before burying the intent and message of the post under what is essentially an (interesting) critique of the semantics.

What is a logical reasoning test if it's not attention to semantics? I believe what we have said about premise C and "therefore" is perfectly relevant.


_________________
AQ: 42/50 || SQ: 32/80 || IQ(RPM): 138 || IRI-empathytest(PT/EC/FS/PD): 10(-7)/16(-3)/19(+3)/19(+10) || Alexithymia: 148/185 || Aspie-quiz: AS 133/200, NT 56/200


mds_02
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,077
Location: Los Angeles

13 Jul 2012, 3:44 am

Only on an aspie board would this thread be in the dating section.


_________________
If life's not beautiful without the pain, 
well I'd just rather never ever even see beauty again. 
Well as life gets longer, awful feels softer. 
And it feels pretty soft to me. 

Modest Mouse - The View


Teredia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 631
Location: Australia

13 Jul 2012, 3:47 am

Declension wrote:
Teredia wrote:
Declension wrote:
You really shouldn't put "therefore" there, since it makes it ambiguous whether "false" means "A does not imply B" or "B is false". I am assuming the latter, since otherwise the answer "not enough information to tell" is redundant. My answers are:

Not enough information to tell, not enough information to tell, not enough information to tell.

You might quibble with my interpretation of "almost all", but my training in measure theory has probably changed how I think about that particular phrase, since it is a technical term in measure theory. For example, in measure theory it is true that almost all positive integers are positive.


Don't you think its interesting how the rest of us can get grapes out of orange juice?


I understand how people could come up with different answers, if that's what you mean. For one thing, the phrase "almost all" is ambiguous as to whether or not it excludes "all". For another thing, the questions are phrased badly and seem to create a confusion between whether a statement is true and whether an argument is valid. Those are different concepts.

For example, here is a valid argument whose premises and conclusion are all false:

Quote:
Premise: 2 + 2 = 5.
Conclusion: 2 = 3.


And here is an invalid argument whose premises and conclusion are all true:

Quote:
Premise: Cats are mammals.
Conclusion: Chess is a board game.


yeah thats exactly what I meant... When i read the questions i kept having to relate them to real objects.. usually animals and their scientific names, and what theyre realted to... its how i make logic of the illogic. =)
if C is X therefore C is Y if some X's are Y's but not all means we are getting grapes out of oranges but in reality we have watermellons =)