Logic test

[Delphiki]

Take this test, post your score. Be honest. Jesus knows when you're lying.

http://www.think-logically.co.uk/lt.htm

This test reveals one's ability to use logic. I'd say it does a pretty good job!

I actually only missed one, but once it was explained why I missed it, I realized my mistake and understood exactly why I was wrong... Had I read more carefully, I probably would have gotten it right as well.

Have fun!

 

[Delphiki]

Also, test 2, same result for me... Only the one I missed was because I was struggling with the sentences. lol

arm-chair logic - logic test 2

 

[rockaction]

100%. Logic is wonderful! Helps you overcome moments when common sense may lead you astray.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

100%. Yay!

 

[Son of the King]

Also, test 2, same result for me... Only the one I missed was because I was struggling with the sentences. lol

arm-chair logic - logic test 2

I got 80% but they are wrong on questions 3, 11 and 14. Had I considered "validity is not the same as truth" I might have gotten only one wrong.

 

[Nostromo]

Is this like those penis length surveys where only people with a certain magnitude will contribute?

 

[sfs]

Is this like those penis length surveys where only people with a certain magnitude will contribute?

And where people lie a lot?

 

[Delphiki]

lol.. I like that.. "It's not me! It's the test that's wrong!"

 

[Nomarga]

I got 100%, which surprised me. I expected there to be some "gotcha" questions mixed in.

 

[tansy]

I got three wrong. Two of them were the ones about ducks barking and quacking. Wasn't sure about those as I thought there was the possibility that Donald had some 'speech' impediment, so therefore could maybe neither quack nor bark LOL. therwise would have got them right.
The other one I got wrong was the water one, as knowing not much about chemistry I thought that probably if water were anything other than H2O, then it would no longer BE water...whether that is any more logicalthan the answer given I'mnot sure..hmmm

 

[Supreme]

Got 11 (73%).

 

[rockaction]

I got three wrong. Two of them were the ones about ducks barking and quacking. Wasn't sure about those as I thought there was the possibility that Donald had some 'speech' impediment, so therefore could maybe neither quack nor bark LOL. therwise would have got them right.

While that's some clever thinking, one of the premises was "All ducks can bark", which excludes the possibility that there is a duck out there that cannot bark. So structurally, the argument is "valid". The truth of the premises is suspect, however, so the conclusion may not be true.

The other one I got wrong was the water one, as knowing not much about chemistry I thought that probably if water were anything other than H2O, then it would no longer BE water...whether that is any more logicalthan the answer given I'mnot sure..hmmm

The problem with that one is that it is inductive rather than deductive reasoning. Whenever an argument is structured in that you can only come to a conclusion from a probabilistic or statistical standpoint, it's inductive.

 

[Avatar]

14/15. Got caught on the very last one, the water one.

 

[rockaction]

14/15. Got caught on the very last one, the water one.

On my first test in my college logic course, I got busted on one of those too. I've been hyper-alert to them ever since!

 

[keith99]

14 out of 15. If I cared enough to spend more than a few seconds on each question I would likely have nociced a change in one letter.

Nothing to do with logic, just with careful reading.

 

[Avatar]

14 out of 15. If I cared enough to spend more than a few seconds on each question I would likely have nociced a change in one letter.

Nothing to do with logic, just with careful reading.

Still, you have to have a logical mind to translate the careful reading into the correct answers. I agree, though, not a terribly difficult test.

 

[keith99]

Still, you have to have a logical mind to translate the careful reading into the correct answers. I agree, though, not a terribly difficult test.

For me it is just having a truely twisted mind. I think many posters on this thread would have done better if they realized the gostak distims teh doshes.

 

[Delphiki]

I'm so glad some people missed the water one. I don't feel as stupid now.
My reason for choosing valid was that the conclusion started with "We can all assume.." Which, logically, we can all assume anything because the conditions didn't have any control over or mention anything about people making an assumption. It stated 2 facts, and then gave a somewhat (what I thought to be) unrelated conclusion (us possibly assuming).

I concede that I was wrong on that one, though, because even by my own reason, it's invalid on the grounds that the two conditions say nothing about "us/we" making an assumption.

I think that if it said "We can assume there is a high probability.... " then it might be valid. Is that right?

Boy, I hope this post isn't too confusing.

 

[tansy]

While that's some clever thinking, one of the premises was "All ducks can bark", which excludes the possibility that there is a duck out there that cannot bark. So structurally, the argument is "valid". The truth of the premises is suspect, however, so the conclusion may not be true.

Yes...I suppose I was adding other criteria. I think this may be one reason (my husband) will often accuse me of not being logical. I don't think it's that I'm incapable of logic...it's just that when I look at something I try to factor in as many angles, possibilities etc as I can. I drive people mad, because I'malways saying 'well, what if this..or what if that....or there's always an outside chance that...'.
Maybe it's what comes of having had children...one doesn't ASSUME that just because they're toddlers, they can't reach a high shelf to get something dangerous, as there are often all manner of ways they can indeed do so.
So far as I can see, one can only apply logic as far as one is aware of the facts...if there are facts one is unaware of, then one's logic can fall apart for practical purposes. Hm...is that a logical statement ? LOL

The problem with that one is that it is inductive rather than deductive reasoning. Whenever an argument is structured in that you can only come to a conclusion from a probabilistic or statistical standpoint, it's inductive.[/quote

Yes, I did have some difficulty in deciding on that one....and plumped for the wrong answer

 

[Delphiki]

*so waiting for certain people to take this test and hoping they aren't scared of it*