A simple logical reasoning test

Post Reply New Topic

Rewrite:

In this test, "No" will be taken to mean "definitely not". For example, in the first part, "No" would mean "It is definitely true that some y are not x". "Not enough information" means "it may be true, but we can't tell from the information provided". For example, in the first "Not enough information" means "It may be true that all y are x, but there is insufficient information to tell"

Does B follow from A, if A is accepted as true?

A: Some x are y.
B. All x are y.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Not enough information.

Does C follow from A and B, if A and B are accepted as true?

A: Most x are y.
B. C is an x.
C. C is y.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Not enough information.


Does B follow from A, if A is accepted as true?

A: Almost all x are y.
B: Therefore, some x are not y.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Not enough information.

Bonus question! Do either of D or E follow from A, B, and C, if A, B, or C are accepted as true?

A. Many women like men who are smartly dressed.
B. Jill is a woman.
C. Jill says that a man's dress sense does not factor into his appeal for her.
D. Jill is lying.
E. Jill does not know her own mind, or life history.

Thanks! That clearified it!


I do read it regulary, and I have read the first post in all those threads.. and then mostly left the threads. I get it now, you just made your point by creating an example a logical mind would understand.

Too bad it was illogical and lost its intended meaning, because of a typo.

Oh well, thanks for explaining Have a nice day

you could just send the OP a PM and ask if you are one of the offending members.

AsKSPGerger: Well then KEEP waiting a little while. Your "logic" and "reasoning" just give me a strong "where the hell do I start" feeling.

No, please don't.
I've seen him say in other threads that he doesn't think that generalities are universals, anyway.

oh yeah, fair enough!! !

Snarky comments: totally necessary.
It was a typing error, not a logical error. The test APPEARED illogical because of it.

But on the other hand, posts in this thread suggest that he takes "I can't get laid so I will explain it by trying to explain human behaviour, mostly through guesswork, in terms of the Paleolithic Era, while ignoring that we are not in the same circumstances now and that the ability to adapt to different situations, or at least notice that things are different, is a major survival trait for humans", aka evolutionary theory, seriously.

Yes, but I get the impression that that is what the OP is trying to argue. I.e. "not ALL women/men are like A so it is incorrect to assume that all W are A," but in certain ways people are so overwhelmingly a certain way that betting too much on the very unlikely outcome that they're not can be a bad idea -- but logic alone won't give you that result. You have to use probability and gain/loss considerations. I.e. "don't bet more than you're willing to lose."

That's what is called a heuristic, and we do have to use heuristics all the time because of lack of data, or because the processing would be too time consuming.

But false heuristics cause very serious problems. Example:

http://culturefusion.blogspot.ca/2005/1 ... istic.html

Therefore, it's best not to rely on heuristics too much, and be aware of the problems with using them. Even though we do have to use them, sometimes.

I think as far as the particular subject in question, there is a big flaw in the reasoning being used here. Faking it will never make you competitive with those for whom it is natural, and it usually precludes finding any sort of lasting relationship - you can't fake forever, and then the other person will discover they're with someone they don't actually know and who deceived them about their actual personal qualities. This usually ends badly, because it's essentially like forming a relationship with any random person, blindly. You're not going to ever find anyone compatible by faking it. Though this is not to say there is no effort involved.

It still doesn't quite make sense. Either B follows from A, or it doesn't. There is no such thing as "not enough information" when it comes to the question of whether B follows from A.

I think that your three options should be:

1. B follows from A.
2. NOT B follows from A.
3. Neither B nor NOT B follows from A.

Another way to put it would be like this:

1. A implies B.
2. A implies NOT B.
3. A does not imply B, and A does not imply NOT B.

Yet another way to put it would be like this:

1. If A is true, then B must be true.
2. If A is true, then B must be false.
3. If A is true, then it is possible for B to be true, and it is also possible for B to be false.

Yes, 70 000 members will PM him to ask if they are on the list. How handy Not sure WP server could take it

Who_Am_I - no problem I am very patient
And add to your answer why do you mock someone who can't get laid?

The answer in EVERY case is C (not enough information).

Essentially your making the same statement over and over again: most X is Y, A is X, therefore A is Y.

In each case youve told us that "most" of X is Y.
You dont tell us anything about the minority of X that are not known to be Y- whether they are just not known to be Y or whether they are infact KNOWN not to be Y.

So in each case the answer has to be "not enough data to make a judgment".

So tell us the answer and tell us wtf this all has to do with dating and romance?

Hey, if they can't take it online, they are certainly not going to handle it well in the bedroom.

So obviously, any mocking on my part would be out of the kindness of my heart.
Gotta thicken up the poor guy's... skin.

Agreed. Seems basic enough.

The first problem is that, for me at least, the statement



is not quite the same thing as the statement



The word "therefore" is a logical connective between statements, and it is not appropriate to use it unless the preceding statement implies the current one, but it does not really affect the truth-value of the statement in which it appears. For example, consider the following two statements:



Could you really say that the second statement is "false" simply because the phrase "on the other hand" is not appropriate?

The second problem is that if we interpret "false" to mean "A does not imply B", then there is no possible use for the answer "not enough information". You always have enough information to determine whether or not A implies B.