Logic test

[plindboe]

100%. Woot. Then again, I have a bit of an edge... despite never having taken a logic class, both my parents teach it at college and took a vested interest in raising me with it. I think them for it a lot. And that 100% is only for part 1, I will edit in part II's score later.

Edit: 14, 93%. The one about Mary murdering this time tripped me up, because I thought that the CCTV evidence showing her stabbing the guy would tip the school to 'therefore Mary committed the murder' compared to the first one. But I suppose it could have been tampered with to show that she did it when she didn't, so... yeah. Whoops.

Metherion

We chose exactly the same answers then, and I chose "Valid" in the Mary murderer question as well for exactly the same reason as you. In fact, I still think it's valid. The premise didn't say that the evidence showed something that looked like Mary commiting the murder, it states that "The CCTV evidence showed only Mary stabbing the man shortly before he died". If it had been tampered with, then it wouldn't have been Mary in the CCTV evidence and the premise wouldn't be correct. If we accept the premise as correct, then Mary did murder him (assuming that stabbing someone shortly before he dies equals murder).

Peter

 

[Gecko King]

"You scored 15 (100%)"

 

[3sigma]

If it had been tampered with, then it wouldn't have been Mary in the CCTV evidence and the premise wouldn't be correct.

What if the tampering removed a section showing someone else inflicting the stab wound that was the cause of his death before or after Mary stabbed him? What if the CCTV evidence begins after or ends before another person delivered the ultimately fatal blow?

Granted, Question 14 in the second test provides a very strong inductive argument that Mary murdered the man, but it isn’t deductively valid. For an argument to be deductively valid, the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises. There must be no possible universe in which the premises are true, yet the conclusion is false. In this case, it is possible that someone else stabbed the man to death, but they don’t appear in the CCTV evidence because it doesn’t cover the time when they did it either through tampering or brevity.

There are no premises in Question 14 that preclude the possibility of someone else stabbing the man to death before or after Mary stabbed him.

Also, for an argument to be logically valid, the premises don’t have to be true. It is just that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. However, for an argument to be logically sound, it must be logically valid and the premises must be true.

As an aside, I notice that only a few people here appear to be taking the second test.

 

[plindboe]

What if the tampering removed a section showing someone else inflicting the stab wound that was the cause of his death before or after Mary stabbed him? What if the CCTV evidence begins after or ends before another person delivered the ultimately fatal blow?

Granted, Question 14 in the second test provides a very strong inductive argument that Mary murdered the man, but it isn’t deductively valid. For an argument to be deductively valid, the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises. There must be no possible universe in which the premises are true, yet the conclusion is false. In this case, it is possible that someone else stabbed the man to death, but they don’t appear in the CCTV evidence because it doesn’t cover the time when they did it either through tampering or brevity.

There are no premises in Question 14 that preclude the possibility of someone else stabbing the man to death before or after Mary stabbed him.

Also, for an argument to be logically valid, the premises don’t have to be true. It is just that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. However, for an argument to be logically sound, it must be logically valid and the premises must be true.

Yes, good points, you're right. I even said "(assuming that stabbing someone shortly before he dies equals murder)" in my last post, but since that premise wasn't mentioned in the quiz, I shouldn't have made the assumption.

As an aside, I notice that only a few people here appear to be taking the second test.

It's harder and more interesting (i.e. fun), so I advice people to try it out.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

As an aside, I notice that only a few people here appear to be taking the second test.

It's harder and more interesting (i.e. fun), so I advice people to try it out.

I'm busy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

As an aside, I notice that only a few people here appear to be taking the second test.

100%

ETA: Though, I can't honestly say how I would have answered question 6 (the murder) had I not seen the discussion here. I'd like to think that given I answered the related question correctly, I would have gotten it right without the discussion here.

 

[Jade Margery]

Missed the last question only, though I feel it isn't quite fair. This sentence:

Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

..seems to indicate to me that this is what water is. Water = molecule with two hydrogens and one oxygen. Period. If we take that as true, the second statement doesn't even matter--all future examinations of water will show that it has the above composition or that it is some other substance with properties close to those of water, and since we know this will be the case a safe prediction can be made.

Edit: Sweet, scored 15 out of 15 on the second one. That one was definitely harder though.

 

[Jade Margery]

Although, a word to the wise about the second test if you're not english: I had no idea what 'before the beak' meant. Had to look it up--the beak is a prison officer or something like that. No spoiler, just wanted to clarify for other peeps.

 

[dewaddict84]

Wow, 100%
Freaky.

I wasn't really sure about the murder one. The only thing that made me answer correctly was that it was a logic test. And the answer were strictly based on logic, and not reason. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that she committed murder.

Or the one about "could eat a horse" vs. "should eat a horse". I thought that might just be a typo.

But WOOO me!

 

[driewerf]

Same here.

I found it painful to click invalid on "therefore all kangaroos are marsupials" ... I wanted to say ... "but, but, they are!"

100%
The hardest thing is to switch off your knowledge and only think withinh the limits of the premises. It was hard for me to click invalid in the kangaroo-question too. It was already easier for the water-question (although I have a Master-degree in chemistry).

 

[Tinker Grey]

Missed the last question only, though I feel it isn't quite fair. This sentence:

..seems to indicate to me that this is what water is. Water = molecule with two hydrogens and one oxygen. Period. If we take that as true, the second statement doesn't even matter--all future examinations of water will show that it has the above composition or that it is some other substance with properties close to those of water, and since we know this will be the case a safe prediction can be made.

Edit: Sweet, scored 15 out of 15 on the second one. That one was definitely harder though.

I thought the one about water was tough too. I feel that the authors of the test strayed into error here. If we define water as a molecule with only two hydrogens and one oxygen atom, there is no need to wonder whether we'd ever find a molecule of water that wasn't H[sub]2[/sub]O ... by definition, anything that isn't H[sub]2[/sub]O isn't water.

Similarly, someone here (in another sub-forum) challenged me as whether I could know that all atom of gold have the same atomic weight. Barring isotopes (and anything else this non-chemist might have missed), the question kind-a misses the point of induction. There is no induction here. It is a definition. If we find an atom we thought was gold but it doesn't have the correct atomic weight, it isn't gold. Period. Hence it is a logical impossibility to find an atom of gold that doesn't have the defined weight.

OTOH the quiz specified, I recall, that it was a quiz about deduction. Perhaps that was the intended trap. But still ...

 

[sfs]

I thought the one about water was tough too. I feel that the authors of the test strayed into error here. If we define water as a molecule with only two hydrogens and one oxygen atom, there is no need to wonder whether we'd ever find a molecule of water that wasn't H[sub]2[/sub]O ... by definition, anything that isn't H[sub]2[/sub]O isn't water.

The definition does indeed imply that every water molecule we look at will consist of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. It does not imply that every examination of a water molecule will reveal that composition, not without the additional premise that all examinations of water molecules accurately reveal their composition. (And that's leaving aside the fact that the conclusion is about what we can predict, not about what we will observe.)

 

[sfs]

15/15

This is just sentential and monadic predicate logic. You could easily symbolize the first 10 or so if you'd felt like it.

If you felt like it, and remembered symbolic logic. I dimly recall reading a book or two on symbolic logic, but I'm not even sure which decade that was, and I've long since forgotten the details.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The definition does indeed imply that every water molecule we look at will consist of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. It does not imply that every examination of a water molecule will reveal that composition, not without the additional premise that all examinations of water molecules accurately reveal their composition. (And that's leaving aside the fact that the conclusion is about what we can predict, not about what we will observe.)

I hadn't thought about the question as to whether we would fail to observe what actually is water as water. However, if we fail to find that a molecule has the composition of water, we would be right to conclude that it wasn't water. If thing X fails to meet definition Y, then we should not conclude that it is Y.

We could be wrong about the actuality, but we would be right to draw the conclusion because we have drawn it from the only evidence available. In writing our report, we might allow that our methodology had errors, but given our results: It wasn't water.

Going back to the question: If we examine a molecule that we suppose is water and find that it doesn't meet the definition, we should conclude it wasn't water at all. IOW, all water that we examine will have be H[sub]2[/sub]O, otherwise it isn't water and we weren't examining water.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I hadn't thought about the question as to whether we would fail to observe what actually is water as water. However, if we fail to find that a molecule has the composition of water, we would be right to conclude that it wasn't water. If thing X fails to meet definition Y, then we should not conclude that it is Y.

We could be wrong about the actuality, but we would be right to draw the conclusion because we have drawn it from the only evidence available.
In writing our report, we might allow that our methodology had errors, but given our results: It wasn't water.

Going back to the question: If we examine a molecule that we suppose is water and find that it doesn't meet the definition, we should conclude it wasn't water at all. IOW, all water that we examine will have be H[sub]2[/sub]O, otherwise it isn't water and we weren't examining water.

But the conclusion states that we are examining water. It doesn't say that we will conclude that a given sample of stuff is water iff it's water - it says that, when examining water, we'll forever conclude that said sample (which we know is water) is indeed water.

But that could clearly be wrong. If the sample of genuine H[sub]2[/sub]O goes through a faulty analyser, we would 'reveal' that the sample is oil - yet it really is water.

The test is basically saying "The truth of past and present experiments doesn't ensure the validity of future experiments", IMO.

 

[Lillen]

A competition in logic...

"The devils repetes your thoughts at the operah and dance to them", is the most symmetric formula for logic there is. It induce repetative thoughts with the afflicted...

 

[Delphiki]

A competition in logic...

"The devils repetes your thoughts at the operah and dance to them", is the most symmetric formula for logic there is. It induce repetative thoughts with the afflicted...

lol What?

 

[Lillen]

SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS


A old witch formula i found in a old encyclepedia. I would guess every similarity test are deduced from there...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A competition in logic...

"The devils repetes your thoughts at the operah and dance to them", is the most symmetric formula for logic there is. It induce repetative thoughts with the afflicted...

... what?

SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS


A old witch formula i found in a old encyclepedia. I would guess every progressive matrix test are deduced from there

... what?

What's it a formula for?
What encyclopaedia did you find it in?
You realise that it's just a mildly amusing linguistic trick, right? That they're thousands of them? Look, I'll make one:

SNOW
NOSE
OSIS
WEST

Therefore, snow is of the devil... right?

 

[Lillen]

In the encyclepedia from the early 1880ies or parahaps early 1920ies it said that that formula was in connection with witchcraft.

My guess is that this particluar formula induce repetative thoughts. "The devils repete your thoughts at the opera and rotate to them" is the actual meaning of the mentioned formula...

And also, your snow formula isn't as symmetric as phantom of the opera formula...

I believe that every of those mensa tests you find on the internet a deduced from that witchfomula. And guess what, i believe taking those test will actually make you dumber.

The test results are copyrighted and the test in it self is patented, and the correct answers are applied to everyone that interact with the supervisor of the test (he got the right answers). If the psychologist likes you, you will score high, and if the psychologists doesn't like you because of some reason you will score low. And while doing the test with a supervisor you meet for the first time - you better give a good first impression! The copyrighted results are given to you!

Moreover in the end i know people who are really good at cracking mensa test, but all they do in reality is sitting infront of a computer typing messeges to those who doesn't give a biping bip about what you know, how you know it, and why you have come to such conlusion. All internet disputers has incommon is that the want to boast about their intellect usually by making you look dumb

Remeber intellect is invented and patented behaviour. You can interact with others by giving and taking attributes, or if you have been in the army, share attribute with others. This is what behavioural scientists do, they invent diffrent behaviours and apply that to their followers- The first knowned patented behaviours was taken from old drama such as king oidipus. Usually psychiatrists produce affliction with their followers in exchange for creative behaviour. Many people see the doctors diagnos as a handicap, while i see it as the cause of creativity. The diagnos lives in symbios with the creative behaviour causing the afflicted to think diffrently from others.

Diffrent types of intellect is invented and usually lives in symbiosis with affliction, (Such as antisocial and narcissitic). Being intresting is something a few people are gifted with. Usually only impulsive cluster speakers, Hitler for one (even though I do not share his view on race biology and am against his extermination of those he concidered weak)