# Thread: logics test

1. Originally Posted by sleepy
15/15 on test 1.
15/15 on test 2.

yay

On test 2 there was a few wordings that was very odd, so I counted on that to be on purpose.

I just concluded that admitting to murder isn't the same as doing it.
I concluded that he may as well have died of a heart attack and from the shock the wife stabbed him and made it look like murder because she is on a destrive pattern. And like that, many other possibilities. The point is that all of the premises weren't solid proof.

2. Originally Posted by Fluffywolf
The point is that all of the premises weren't solid proof.
Also what I concluded regarding the argument.

Originally Posted by Fluffywolf

a) When I get hungry I could eat a horse.
b) I am hungry now.
- Therefore I should eat a horse.

Invalid. If the first premise contained the word 'should' instead of 'could', then the argument would have been valid.

That sucked. That had nothing to do with logic!
The wordings was a bit odd, I counted on this being on purpose.

a) Whatever goes up must go down.
b) The train robbers are up before the beak.
- Therefore the train robbers will be sure to go down.

Invalid. ‘Up’ and ‘Down’ are used in different senses, therefore an ambiguity is committed.

I checked invalid because going down has nothing to do with the robbers being sure to go down. They might go down without them even realizing it. Thus the statement is invalid.
I checked invalid because they may just be 'up'. And it did not say who 'whatever' was or that 'Whatever' had been 'going up'.

3. Originally Posted by EcK
arm-chair logic - logic test
and
arm-chair logic - logic test 2

'll comment later if somebody finds out about the test maker's mistake.
I enjoyed those tests.

Question 1
1)I didn't do as well as others that have posted here
2) All others are posting a higher score than they got
Conclusion
therefore i did better than i first thought

Valid / Invalid

4. Question 1
1)I didn't do as well as others that have posted here
2) All others are posting a higher score than they got
Conclusion
therefore i did better than i first thought

Valid / Invalid
Invalid, your score remains the same, thus you did as well as you first thought. That other people changed their scores have nothing to do with your score.

5. I missed 3 questions on the 1st test. Let me examine the reasons why I got them wrong, starting with the last one:

a) Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.

Conclusion
Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.

Invalid. The syllogism itself is invalid and can only be considered as a strong inductive argument and not deductive. It is the 'we can predict' part of the conclusion which comes from nowhere, so the argument is not strictly formal. There is an ongoing debate within philosophical circles as to whether water must conform to the molecule H2O. Some argue that it is logically possible for a substance to appear exactly as water and yet still be of a different chemical composition.
I picked VALID, because I had to make an assumption for lack of clarity in the question to help me limit the parameters of realistic possibilities to those specifically framed within the question as intended. Defining what is supposed to be known and what is supposed to be unknown is my downfall in all of these types of questions. So, i chose VALID because I thought the question was defining water as always being a molecule of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, to the extent that anything else would not be CALLED water, it'd be something else. Therefore, any time you find such a molecule, it will be identified as water, and vice-versa. If I knew that was NOT held to be true within the framework of the question, Id've chosen INVALID.

diagram for Q14The results from a logic test taken by 500 women and 500 men showed that:

a) Some women are more logical than some men.
b) Some men are more logical than some women.
c) The top ten performers were all women.
d) The bottom ten performers were all men.

Invalid. This conclusion can't be drawn because the results could have been as shown in diagram.

Until we see the full details of the survey, we can't be sure that the results above did not occur. What conclusion would be drawn if that was the case?
Here, I chose VALID because I made an assumption about the distribution of men and women in the middle 80%. I had already formed the same picture/graph they showed within my head, except mine was more of a scatter plot, and I imagined men and women to be rather evenly distributed below the top 10% and above the bottom 10%. The question gave no information about that, so I shouldn't have assumed such. However, it was a logical leap that I made based on the nature of what was being studied. I already know that men and women have nearly the same intelligence and cognitive abilities, logic included. That, and other real world factors, sullied my line of thinking on the question and violated the set parameters. My bad.

Then there was the murder question.

Again, I suck at using artificial parameters for limiting my logic. I went too far into using only the given info, instead of considering all extraneous possibilities, though I thought that would've actually gotten me dinged. I chose wrong :/.

6. Originally Posted by Risen

Again, I suck at using artificial parameters for limiting my logic. I went too far into using only the given info, instead of considering all extraneous possibilities, though I thought that would've actually gotten me dinged. I chose wrong :/.
That's the interesting part of the test though. It basicly proves that even logic is not infallable, as we live in a subjective world. I began the test with your perspective too but than changed as I realized this was going for pure logic, not the 'truthful' answers or the answers that you would rationally deduct based on the information given and the chance factors involved with realism..

7. Originally Posted by Fluffywolf
That's the interesting part of the test though. It basicly proves that even logic is not infallable, as we live in a subjective world. I began the test with your perspective too but than changed as I realized this was going for pure logic, not the 'truthful' answers or the answers that you would rationally deduct based on the information given and the chance factors involved..
Well, it's a logic test, but logic depends on what info is available to you. We are not omniscient beings, so our logic will always be flawed since we don't have knowledge of all related variables. The trick to this test is knowing what info can be included in your logic and what can't, according to the question being asked and the info presented. It's a test of "logically" selecting what info is relevant to the parameters set and what isn't, then determining the logical answer to the question based upon the set parameters. The difference between this test and real life is that in real life, there are no set limitations to logic and the info it should use , unless those limitations are artificially set by PEOPLE in some sort of system. Real life logic draws upon all info available to attempt to form accurate conclusions and predictions.

The trick to using logic effectively in real life is to select which pieces of info/variables have the greatest impact on the situation, since we have a limited ability to examine all the variables involved. It CAN be done systematically over a long period of time, involving lots of research and examination to perfect the logic, but in most situations we have to rely on making shortcuts so that we can efficiently go forth making decisions in a timely manner. But for all intents and purposes, in real life, the more information that is available, the more accurate your logic will be. In this test, the more accurately you limit the pool of information, the more accurate the derived logic will be (according to the test).

8. Yup, the test is just a little y=a+b game.

9. Originally Posted by Risen
The trick to using logic effectively in real life is ....
...first to understand it.

just kidding, but it is really just valid/not valid. There is nothing else involved. It's mathematics compared to physics. The latter I detest, because it requires some form of understanding.

10. Originally Posted by sleepy
...first to understand it. ?
What Risen is saying is that logic 'in a box' can not cover for all predictions. And there's a subjective aspect, that in essense isn't logic. But still the most logical.

Logic may state that if you have an appleseed, then in order to get apples you need to plant the seed and nurture the appletree that grows from it. But it's still far more logical to go to a supermarket and buy some apples instead.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO