News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 634     0 

logic test

fun. As usual, i aced it.


p.s.
the answer given for the final question is incorect so some others of you should also have gotten 15/15.
 
p.s.
the answer given for the final question is incorect so some others of you should also have gotten 15/15.

Do you have a basis or explanation for this, or are you simply declaring that the quiz is wrong? What of the people who got 15/15? You're saying they're wrong?
`
 
Last edited:
15. part one is an observation of what water is composed of.

Second statement is also a statement saying that every observation (so far) has confirmed this. Just because every observation up to this point is x does not mean that there are not anomalous observations yet to be made.

Sort of comes down to something I learned a long time ago, you can never prove something is true - you can only disprove it :rolleyes:

i.e. just because you observe something to be true, does not mean it to always be true.

BTW. Ever heard of heavy water :eek:
 
anybody that takes this test now and reads this thread will not have an honest score.
 
Depends on how the person approaches things. I think that most people that see it and are interested in taking the test (the ooo goody a test - lets try), will do the test, then come back and read the thread.
 
I got that last one because I remembered Humean skepticism. (My score was still 14/15. I took the test shortly after this was originally posted. I don't remember which one I got wrong.)
 
I'd say that the answer for #15 is wrong.

part (a) of the premise states that "Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom."

This is given as a fact as part of the premise. If this premise were true, then every future examination would confirm this.

part (b) of the premise is irrelevant.
 
I'd say that the answer for #15 is wrong.

part (a) of the premise states that "Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom."

This is given as a fact as part of the premise. If this premise were true, then every future examination would confirm this.

part (b) of the premise is irrelevant.

I guess you could read it that way, but I am use to starting with a theoretical premise, from which you are working to prove/disprove the theory. The second part is an observation. But even with a premise and an observation that backs up that premise - does not mean that all future observations will back up that premise. In fact, often they don't which leads to a re-examination of theories that were previously accepted as fact.

Side Note: A lot of people here on this board seem to confuse the difference between fact and observation when it comes to "scientific fact" (global warming). Fact is not determined by democratic means, which means that if you convince a majority of a given profession - it still does not become scientific fact. Is the world warming.... that you can determine by observation - but of course it is in relation to the set of data you collect. It may be warmer than 20 years ago, but it is cooler than when the dino's roamed the world. World temperatures go up and down - and rarely are completely stable. Are humans solely responsible (or a majority responsible) for global warming - that is still not proven fact. Do we have an impact - most certainly. In fact, if find that word to be a very dangerous word because it historically has derailed scientific advancement for lengthy periods of time - once you stop questioning - science comes to a halt.
 
Last edited:
Ziggy is right, I believe (depending on how one interprets the conclusion). If you have two premises:
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.

b is indeed irrelevant. Provided 'an examination' does not yield false data, the conclusion is the premise a. In predicate logic, we know that (a and b) => a.

Really the test isn't much of a logic test. Probably more a reading comprehension test. The actual logic involved was fairly basic. Formulating the logic in terms of ambiguous language was the challenge, and due to the ambiguity there may be more than one valid interpretation.
 

Back
Top