» News

Logic Test

Home - by - December 28, 2012 - 15:00 America/New_York - 362 Comments

I would love to pit Lefties versus Righties in a test of logic. In the meantime, how’d you do?

HT/kf

LOGIC TEST

My score – 14/15

I will be making the argument as to why my supposed wrong answer is arguably correct in the comments section.

» 362 Comments

  1. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    The test maker wandered off the logic reservation in the last question.

    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.

    This IS valid, not invalid like the test maker tries to argue.
    This is the non-logical argument they make-

    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.

    BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

    Science could/would name it something else. They aren’t compelled to call it water.

    You fail, limey.
    Stick to logic. You muddied the waters of your own test.
    Here, look:

    a) X is a Y composed of two Ems and one En.
    b) Every observation has confirmed this.

    Conclusion
    Therefore we can predict that every future examination of X will reveal it to be a Y composed of two Ems and one En.

    This is correct. Any future observer that assumed they were looking at X but saw a Y composed of three Ems and two Ens was viewing something other than X.

    Noteworthy Comment Thumb up +22

     
  2. Claudia

    December 28th, 2012

    I did this test last night when I saw KFs comment. I got 13/15; missed 14 and 15. So I’m with you, Fur. This is a bogus answer.

    Did the 2nd test, too. Got 13/15 on that one, too.

    Thumb up +1

     
  3. Slippery

    December 28th, 2012

    I got 13 out of 15 correct, I also missed the water question and the men are from mars and women are from venus, no big surprise there!

    Some of the questions I had to read several times before I could answer.

    Thumb up +1

     
  4. Mr. Pinko

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15

    Thumb up +1

     
  5. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15

    The water question. You make predictions based on statistical data. My opinion, they are invalid on that question.

    Thumb up +2

     
  6. Callmelennie

    December 28th, 2012

    A) All liberals suck at logic
    B) I got only 10 of 15 on this test
    Therefore, I am a liberal

    Valid!!

    Thumb up +9

     
  7. Stirrin the B.S.

    December 28th, 2012

    I got 14/15 – missed the stupid kangaroos are marsupials question because I wasn’t paying attention.

    I got the water composition correct, but for the wrong reason. I thought it was a trick question by asking if all future examinations of water molecules will have the same CHEMICAL composition, rather than MOLECULAR composition. Not realizing that hydrogen and oxygen ARE chemical elements. Maybe that only makes sense in my simple mind.

    Thumb up +2

     
  8. conservative cowgirl

    December 28th, 2012

    14 out of 15 for me.

    Thumb up 0

     
  9. Dan

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15
    I missed the “could/should” switcheroo in #8.

    On the water thing, I looked at it this way: Who is to say that future developments in technology wouldn’t expose some information about water molecules that we are simply incapable of knowing at this point in time? I took this approach because of their use of the word “predict”.

    Thumb up +3

     
  10. hanoverfist

    December 28th, 2012

    12/15

    I must be Jessie Jackson.

    Thumb up +4

     
  11. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

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

    BAM!!!!

    Thumb up +2

     
  12. Soylent Green

    December 28th, 2012

    I also got 14.

    Thumb up +1

     
  13. NastyNat

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15 I also “missed” the water question…..

    Thumb up +1

     
  14. eternal cracker p

    December 28th, 2012

    I did this earlier in the morning, got 12/15. Because I stopped at #12 and didn’t continue the test.

    I get bored easily.

    Thumb up +3

     
  15. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    Logic doesn’t rely on “what is ‘is’ ?”

    That is why question 15 is arguable.
    And I argue that I am right. I laid it out in a mathematical equation.

    You can’t say “I’m observing X but it isn’t X, because I know better.”
    It’s not x because you choose to call it X. The “newly discovered” non-X should, logically, be renamed.
    That’s why we call it FOOL’S GOLD.

    Thumb up +4

     
  16. old_oaks

    December 28th, 2012

    I too failed to see the water question being invalid, especially since I also got #10 wrong as follows.

    a) Jenny lives in Paris.
    b) Paris is in New Zealand.
    - Therefore Jenny lives in New Zealand.

    Valid (but not true because Paris is not in New Zealand!)

    We do have a Paris, Illinois and I’m sure there are many other towns/cities called Paris across the globe. The tester considers outside of the premise that no other Paris exists.

    Thumb up +6

     
  17. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    I got the H2O question wrong!

    Thumb up 0

     
  18. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    a) Jenny lives in Paris.
    b) Paris is in New Zealand.
    - Therefore Jenny lives in New Zealand.

    That is why you replace the questions with x and y.

    X lives in Y.
    Y is in Z.
    Therefore, X lives in Z.

    correct.

    Thumb up +2

     
  19. Maksim

    December 28th, 2012

    My results were the same as BFH’s.
    Test two 11/15

    Thumb up 0

     
  20. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    I didn’t do test 2 because I hated question 15.

    Thumb up +7

     
  21. Corky

    December 28th, 2012

    I too got the water question wrong.

    Thumb up +1

     
  22. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    They should make ‘gun control’ logical questions ; with accurate premises.

    Thumb up +3

     
  23. Lithium Treebark Stuporman

    December 28th, 2012

    #1 14/15
    #2 12/15

    They don’t call me Stuporman for nothing.
    They don’t call me Stuporman.

    Therefore, they don’t call me nothing.

    Thumb up +6

     
  24. POOPEYE

    December 28th, 2012

    b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.
    It could be argued that some NEW technique of observation might find something other than H2O… however, you’re correct – the initial assumption must be treated as FACT.

    Thumb up 0

     
  25. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    You scored 15 (100%)
    Press OK to see the answers
    Don’t forget to try logic test 2

    Thumb up +2

     
  26. tucsondon

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15, 15/15 with the water question.

    Thumb up 0

     
  27. CrustyB

    December 28th, 2012

    The water question was the one I got “wrong” as well.

    Thumb up +1

     
  28. thirdtwin

    December 28th, 2012

    They got too cute with the H2O question. After all the questions making us swallow incorrect assumptions about paris, ducks and such they abandon logic and get all hair-splitty philosophizing about science.

    When I read that lame, smirky, gotcha explanation, I can almost hear the voice of Piers Morgan.

    Thumb up +6

     
  29. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    @BigFurHat

    Per your comment at the top: look at it as a variation of Einstein’s statement that one observation could prove him wrong, but no amount of observations could ever prove him right.

    Ignore the water. It’s throwing you off.

    Thumb up +3

     
  30. Mr.Gates

    December 28th, 2012

    Something that appears as water but is chemically different… Is not water. Vodka looks like water to me. But it’s usually around 20% water. What defines appearance? How it looks?

    Thumb up 0

     
  31. Mr.Gates

    December 28th, 2012

    By the way, vodka is 80% alcohol and 22% water. That’s not a typo.

    Thumb up +3

     
  32. redgrandma

    December 28th, 2012

    I got 15 so I guess i blew it on the water question in the BFH universe. I answered all the questions based on the information being provided as the only evidence for arriving at the conclusion even when I believed otherwise or believed the assumptions to be invalid to begin with. Very twisted. Maybe this is the way they brainwash progs — overload them with incorrect assumptions and thereby force them into false “truths”

    Thumb up +7

     
  33. Stirrin the B.S.

    December 28th, 2012

    @Redgrandma – that was the correct approach to answering the questions. I ignored the fact that Paris and New Zealand are geographic locations, and focused on them being objects of the logic equation. If I had thought of them as Paris the city and NZ the country, then I wouldn’t have gotten their correct answer.

    Thumb up +2

     
  34. Kairn

    December 28th, 2012

    After reading all your comments regarding this test, logic tells me not to bother taking the stupid thing.

    Thumb up +6

     
  35. Lithium Treebark Stuporman

    December 28th, 2012

    Even better:
    #1 14/14
    #2 12/12
    !

    “Cogito ergo sum.” -Blaise Pascal
    “You are what you is.” -Frank Zappa

    Thumb up +2

     
  36. eternal cracker p

    December 28th, 2012

    A. Bush cut taxes.
    B. Obama extended tax cuts.

    Conclusion
    Obama cut taxes.

    Where’s the logic here?

    Thumb up +5

     
  37. Dr. Tar

    December 28th, 2012

    12/15

    I missed # 3 on Gary thinking about sex
    # 13 on generalizations and animals
    # 15 on water

    #3 everyone knows there’s Football on Sunday (Go, Pack Go!)

    # 13 WTF? Animals talking not talking hasn’t the creator of the quiz every watched a Disney movie?

    # 15 I’ll defer to the Hatted one here

    Thumb up +1

     
  38. John D

    December 28th, 2012

    15/15 on the first, 13/15 on the second test. Second test appears to require an understanding of English as spoken by the English.

    Therefore, the second test is not factually applicable to English speaking Americans.

    Thumb up +1

     
  39. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    A) a sovereign individual has the natural right to protect herself
    b) nothing but a gun can stop a gun

    Conclusion:
    A sovereign individual has a natural right to own and bear a gun.

    —- valid or invalid?

    Thumb up +5

     
  40. KF

    December 28th, 2012

    I brought this “test” up yesterday with a gathering of mostly liberal friends and relatives. To give you an idea of the crowd, some of my relatives that voted for Romney asked me not to tell anyone out of the loyalty they feel to the Democrat party, the balance are over emotional partisan Democrat liberals that have self-conditioned any remnant of logic out of themselves.

    This test almost started a hockey game in my aunts living room. The second test which asks a logical question about “Barry” was enough to elicit the “reich wing” and “extremist” Bullcrap alleging the test was rigged by Faux News.

    The staunch democrats got low scores and complained constantly while taking the test so it seemed like an interesting way of deducing underlying “liberalism”.

    Thumb up +8

     
  41. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    A) standing armies (foreign and domestic) pose a danger to American citizens

    B) the executive branch of the American government could be overthrown by elected gangsters

    C) citizens need the same basic weapon as used by the US army in orde to be able to resist an army commanded by a nefarious CiC.

    D) that basic weapon is an semi automatic rifle

    Conclusion :

    Citizens has the right and the duty to own semi automatic rifle.

    Thumb up +3

     
  42. RANDO

    December 28th, 2012

    @ Fur. Gary tripped me up.

    On the Water Question, I based my answer on the absolute “every” in the conclusion. There is nothing in the premises that will lead one to a prediction of future observations.
    I doubt that chemical composition of water can be proved with microscopic examination, so I discounted that phrase as irrelevant.

    -L.T. Stuporman

    Thumb up 0

     
  43. billyk

    December 28th, 2012

    Being a chemist I missed the water question–there is a form of water H3O so I let science overun the logic
    I was 13/15–I missed another one maybe the mars venus

    Thumb up 0

     
  44. Moxie Man

    December 28th, 2012

    I got 13/15. As others, I missed 14 and 15.

    Thumb up 0

     
  45. Golly Gee Willikers

    December 28th, 2012

    I got 14/15 on both, missing nearly the same question twice! Mary is guilty, dammit! (I notice that I’m the only fool to specify that wrong answer, too, which must be why I always get rejected from juries by defense lawyers…)

    Thumb up +2

     
  46. AvgDude

    December 28th, 2012

    100% on test 1.
    80% on test 2.

    A) If one is stupid, then one votes for Obama.
    B) Bob is stupid.

    Therefore, Bob voted for Obama.

    Valid.

    Thumb up +8

     
  47. Dust Bunny Queen

    December 28th, 2012

    15/15 I wavered on #5 though.

    Thumb up 0

     
  48. Stranded in Sonoma

    December 28th, 2012

    13/15 — I missed questions 12 and 14.

    On 12, sorry, but a logical conclusion drawn from all of those bits of evidence is that Mary is guilty. In this country, that leads to an arrest warrant for Mary. Yes, there could be another possible explanation: a rat in the apartment could have farted knives that disappeared upon creating the multiple stab wounds in the victim. But I’m discounting that explanation and arresting Mary.

    On 14, I just booted it. Oh well.

    Thumb up +1

     
  49. CombatMissionary

    December 28th, 2012

    15/15. Right-wing. I thought the water question was poorly worded. It should be, “therefore it is reasonable to assume that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.”

    Thumb up +1

     
  50. harbqll

    December 28th, 2012

    I got 15/15, but I agree their explaination of the water question is idiotic. My reasoning went like this:

    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.

    First, and off-topic – if you can actually identify atoms using amicroscope, then that’s one hell of a microscope.

    But to address the question, just because your current level of lab technology gives you a certain level of information, does NOT mean that future (and better) levels of detection equipment will give you the exact same information. For instance, I can give you a certain set of facts using light microscopy, from which we might draw conclusions. However, after my lab acquires an electron microscope, I can give you an additional set of facts which might change our conclusions entirely.

    There fore, every future examination of a specimen (water, in this case) will not necessarily reveal the same composition.

    Thumb up +2

     
  51. eternal cracker p

    December 28th, 2012

    A. If one maxes out credit cards, no more can be borrowed.
    B. America maxed out its credit cards.

    Conclusion
    America can’t borrow any more.

    Thumb up +3

     
  52. sTevo

    December 28th, 2012

    405 – HTTP verb used to access this page is not allowed.

    Thumb up 0

     
  53. AvgDude

    December 28th, 2012

    The trick to determine the validity of syllogisms is to not assess the wording of the premises to actual reality you know. Just assume they’re true unless it is impossible for them to be true, e.g. “A) This premise is false.”. Then assess the validity from that point on. That’s why the following logic is valid even if the premises are idiotic.

    A) All bears are weasels.
    B) All weasels are cats.
    C) All cats are lizards.

    Therefore, all bears are lizards.

    Logically valid but empirically stupid because all the premises are absurd when assessed for scientific accuracy. But logic doesn’t dig that far into the premises. It’s just concerned about words being used consistently through all the premises and conclusion.

    Thumb up +2

     
  54. sTevo

    December 28th, 2012

    a) Jenny lives in Paris.
    b) Paris is in New Zealand.
    - Therefore Jenny lives in New Zealand.

    Paris is also in France, so Jenny could live in Texas.

    Thumb up +2

     
  55. Chieftain

    December 28th, 2012

    I rejected too many of their premises right off the bat to be able to score well.

    One man’s cheese is another man’s rotted milk…

    Thumb up +7

     
  56. Edith McCrotch

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15….I missed the Paris question and I don’t know why.

    “Paris” is a qualitive discription unlike “x” or “y” which are quantative comparisons.

    It’s not like trying to “add apples and oranges” but trying to use mathematics to solve the problem of dangling participles that are contained in the Portugese translation of a Japanese Haiku in braille.

    Here’s my worksheet…..

    http://www.amorfrancis.com/hang-man.gif?9c1df9

    Thumb up +3

     
  57. papadoc

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15. Missed the water one. That’s how theories are formulated: Observations followed by so-called “rules”, which continue to be valid until some future observation counters the rule, forcing an alteration in it. By his explanation, it is not logical to expect gravity to continue to work, or the earth to continue to spin.

    Thumb up +1

     
  58. Edith McCrotch

    December 28th, 2012

    qualitative….

    Thumb up 0

     
  59. sTevo

    December 28th, 2012

    I didn’t realize you could see atoms with a microscope, so I missed the water question.

    Thumb up +1

     
  60. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    RE: microscope

    micro: does not have to exclude the ‘atomic’ level; does not have to be restricted to the ‘molecular’ level.

    scope: spectrum, field of vision

    Thumb up 0

     
  61. even steven

    December 28th, 2012

    I’ve been on pain meds for an infection and haven’t had a lucid thought in the past three days, and I still got 13/15. I already forgot what the questions were.

    Thumb up +5

     
  62. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny, Paris isn’t in New Zealand either. They can’t switch gears on that water test.

    Thumb up +1

     
  63. Plain Jane

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15

    The water molecule one got me. Wouldn’t be water with additional molecules.

    Thumb up +1

     
  64. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Brad,

    They didn’t swicht gears. Let’s take another, analogous example:

    1) Each time I threw a penny in the air, it fell on the ground
    2) I’m throwing a penny in the air

    Conclusion
    I can be certain it will fall on the ground.

    INVALID.
    It’s only worths something as an inference. But inference cannot be used to ascertain truth, only likelihood, only probabilities. No?

    Thumb up 0

     
  65. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Xavier is right.

    BFH and Bad Brad are wrong.

    It’s highly probably that “every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.” But it is NOT a certainty; it is a staggeringly high PROBABILITY.

    Thumb up +1

     
  66. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    BFH:

    a) X is a Y composed of two Ems and one En.
    b) Every observation has confirmed this.

    Conclusion
    Therefore we can predict that every future examination of X will reveal it to be a Y composed of two Ems and one En.

    This is correct.

    Not it is not *correct*.

    You could bet your house and your wife on it if a fool would lay that bet to you. But it is still not a CERTAINTY; only a likelyhood, a galactically high PROBABILITY. You made an INFERENCE based on past observations.

    Maybe that coin you throw in the air next time won’t fall back. (I would not bet on it though.)

    Thumb up 0

     
  67. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny, They were not asking for certainty, they asked for a prediction based on historical consistent data they supplied. Reread the question.

    Thumb up +2

     
  68. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    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.

    Had the conclusion been “we should bet our networth that…” then it would be *valid.*

    But the conclusion is:

    Therefore we can predict [WITH CERTAINTY] that EVERY future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.

    We just can not.

    Thumb up 0

     
  69. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Question #15 points to the fracture between probabilities and certainty.

    Thumb up 0

     
  70. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny, Dude, you can’t throw the conclusion back into the parameters. Per their criteria they asked for a prediction. FUR’s explanation was accurate. By nature, predictions are not certain. They didn’t ask for certainty.

    Thumb up +2

     
  71. Corona

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15…H2WHOA!

    Thumb up +1

     
  72. Dyrewulf

    December 28th, 2012

    13/15 – I honestly didn’t care enough to go parse the answers to figure out which ones I missed. I had several logic classes (20 years ago) in my undergraduate work, many people screw up on the difference between reality and validity. Just look at the Federal Government, their logic is:

    It exists
    We don’t currently tax it
    therefore we should

    Thumb up +1

     
  73. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    I see your point; by I disagree about ‘By nature, predictions are not certain.’

    Pre: before:
    dict: to say.
    You are saying something will happen before it does.

    If you say, I predict the sun will raise tomorrow morning; it implies that you are certain that it will — UNLESS you add a probability: there’s a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that it will. Then you’d be right.

    But to state only ‘I predict’ implies that you are certain.

    Thumb up 0

     
  74. FreeMan & Sarah Intend to Defend

    December 28th, 2012

    aced it

    Thumb up 0

     
  75. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

     
  76. jclady

    December 28th, 2012

    14/15 — drowned on the water question.

    Water is made up of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen molecules. No future observation can change that fact.

    If something else is observed, it’s not water!

    Thumb up +2

     
  77. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Yeah, but we’re in the context of formal logic here.

    http://thesaurus.com/browse/formal+logic?s=t

    We are in the context of ‘pure’ syntax: http://thesaurus.com/browse/syntax

    Thumb up 0

     
  78. Sundance

    December 28th, 2012

    15 – prolly got lucky… I ain’t smart n stuff.

    Thumb up +4

     
  79. KF

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny, did you take that nic from the character Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shruged ?

    Thumb up 0

     
  80. Menderman

    December 28th, 2012

    I got 13. Like BFH, I missed 15 (about water) and the argument is just plain stupid. I also missed 10 (the Paris question). It is invalid because the question assumes there is only one Paris, and I know that to be untrue. The question said:

    “a) Jenny lives in Paris.
    b) Paris is in New Zealand.
    - Therefore Jenny lives in New Zealand.
    .”

    It did not say “The only Paris is in New Zealand”.

    Logically, if there is more than one Paris, it in invalid.

    Thumb up +1

     
  81. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    @KF, ‘d.a.g.n.y.’ imay be an acronym saying ‘I’m right; and Brad is wrong’ in Korean.

    @Menderman, as BFH writes:

    X lives in Y.
    Y is in Z.
    Therefore, X lives in Z.

    correct.

    Thumb up 0

     
  82. Menderman

    December 28th, 2012

    BFH:

    Substitute the word “Paris” with “water”

    a) Jenny lives in Water.
    b) Water is in New Zealand.
    - Therefore Jenny lives in New Zealand.

    Invalid.

    Thumb up 0

     
  83. "That Guy"

    December 28th, 2012

    Test 1) 14/15, I too missed the water question.

    Test 2)) 15/15

    The authors reasoning for the water questions conclusion being invalid is illogical, as BFH pointed out.

    Thumb up +1

     
  84. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    @Menderman

    A logical argument can be both valid AND false — at the same time.

    That’s why we can’t think only in terms of functions; that’s why we need concepts.

    But formal logic works ONLY within the real of function.

    Thumb up 0

     
  85. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    @Menderman

    Logic is math. Forget common sense, it doesn’t apply.

    Paris, New Zealand, etc:

    X is a subset of Y
    Y is a subset of Z

    Therefore, X is a subset of Z

    Thumb up +1

     
  86. Menderman

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny, the Paris question is based on assumptions, and logic is not. Let me do it this way:

    a) fish live in water.
    b) water is in New Zealand.
    - Therefore fish live in New Zealand.

    Invalid.

    (and Paris was capitalized)

    Thumb up 0

     
  87. Menderman

    December 28th, 2012

    Xavier,

    That only works with letters that represent no other possibilities.

    Thumb up 0

     
  88. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    @Menderman, as Xavier said, ‘logic is math’; it works on a plane where there is no historical New Zealand nor Paris; there are only mathematical FUNCTIONS on that plane.

    It’s like the platonic realm of ‘ideas’ but with mathemetical functions only.

    Think algorithm.

    Thumb up 0

     
  89. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Menderman/Dagny:
    This will make everything clear.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M
    /

    Thumb up +2

     
  90. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    Substituting words doesn’t always work – that’s why the water question screwed everybody up. Reduce it to X and Y terms.

    I don’t know how to explain; word definitions are the problem. You’re using common sense and personal knowledge, which don’t come into play here. They may serve you well in the real world but logic is a mathematical construct. Water and Paris are tricks to intentionally throw you off.

    Finally all the years I spent programming are paying off. ;)

    Thumb up +3

     
  91. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    This go to eleven!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thumb up +1

     
  92. "That Guy"

    December 28th, 2012

    To those arguing that the conclusion in question #10 is invalid, you’re wrong! :p

    It doesn’t matter if the premise is true or false, or how many places named “Paris” there are, the premise is that Paris is in New Zeland, it doesn’t allow for the consideration that there may be other places named Paris outside of New Zeland.

    Within the parameters of the 2 premises, the only logical conclusion is that Jenny lives in New Zeland.

    If premise b had been something like “There is a place called Paris in New Zeland,” the conclusion would have been invalid because the premise would have allowed for the possibility of there being other places named Paris outside of New Zeland.

    Thumb up 0

     
  93. Menderman

    December 28th, 2012

    I see what y’all are saying about reducing the equation to a mathmatical formula, but this is not a math test, it is a logic one. This equation:

    X is a subset of Y
    Y is a subset of Z

    Therefore, X is a subset of Z

    only works if there is only one possible value for X and Y. That is not the case in the Paris question. If there was an explanation at the beginning of the test that there are no other possible place that could be assigned as “paris” and only one paris existed, then it would be valid, but it does not. One must assume that there is only one possible “paris”.

    Thumb up 0

     
  94. Mohammed's pink swastika

    December 28th, 2012

    I got 53%, i couldn’t help it like Gary, we were thinking about sex. Who gives a shIt about logic whenyou just found a free porn site for android. Why is my phone running so slow?7

    Thumb up +1

     
  95. Menderman

    December 28th, 2012

    Yup, you hit the nail on the head Bad Brad!

    Thumb up +1

     
  96. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Naturally, Brad.

    Thumb up 0

     
  97. Sarthurk

    December 28th, 2012

    You can’t see a fukin water molecule under microscope! Dumbass!

    Thumb up 0

     
  98. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Xavier

    Problem 15 in it’s most simplistic algebraic expression. 2xy. They told you it’s true every time they checked. It’s never been any different. They have good data. Why would I not predict it would be the same tomorrow?

    Thumb up 0

     
  99. Menderman

    December 28th, 2012

    So “That Guy”, this argument is valid as well then:

    a) fish live in water.
    b) water is in New Zealand.
    - Therefore fish live in New Zealand.

    What you are saying is that words have no meaning in a test of logic and the actual word means nothing, correct?

    So if:

    a) skermdop live in clork.
    b) clork is in Grinal Poip.
    - Therefore skermdop live in Grinal Poip.

    that is valid?

    It still requires one to assume that clork only exists in Grinal Poip does it not?

    Thumb up +1

     
  100. Menderman

    December 28th, 2012

    Math is Math

    Logic is not math

    Therfore logic is not math.

    VALID!!!!!

    I win!!!

    and I quit!

    Thumb up +3

     
  101. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    “I don’t know how to explain; word definitions are the problem. ”

    Yes; words function as mathematical formulas on this plane of logic:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JgGKViQzbc

    There are no concepts in the realm of logic, nor percepts; only mathematical functions.

    Thumb up 0

     
  102. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Menderman, I forgot how damn funny that skit was. I had to listen to the whole thing.

    Thumb up +1

     
  103. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny, Dude, I think your plane has wings, mine has three points.

    Thumb up 0

     
  104. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z1fIsUNhO4&NR=1&feature=endscreen

    Möbius Transformations; this is pretty cool. That’s the plane of logic.

    Thumb up 0

     
  105. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Brad, your plane has 3 three points; but don’t forget the Riemanian SPHERE at the center. The wings you detect on my plane are only effects of Mobius Transformations!!!

    ;-)

    Thumb up 0

     
  106. Mr. Happy

    December 28th, 2012

    15/15 – I am your god!

    The water question was valid in so much as the statements made no reference to any known laws that would preclude any other arrangement for water and also sample size.
    Did you look though that really powerful microscope only twice? Do you know that water can only be composed of that combination of H2O?
    Maybe the exception is so rare that even observing water a million times would not statistically rule out other combinations?
    One example would be heavy water. Think deuterium instead of hydrogen. It’s still a water, but so damn rare in nature you could go a whole lifetime without observing it, hence the fallacy, as the first statement only references ONE TYPE of water and not all types.

    Thumb up +2

     
  107. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    @Bad Brad and Menderman

    Hey, I know it’s crazy and frustrating. It was hard for me to learn too, but it is what it is. Logically, you can’t prove the sun will come up in the east tomorrow, or at all. But I’d bet the moon on it.

    The only thing I can tell you is: the logic we’re talking about isn’t the same as the “logic” you use everyday to make rational decisions.

    And yes, it is math.

    Math sucks.
    Logic is math.
    Therefore…

    Thumb up +1

     
  108. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny,
    a) X is a Y composed of two Ems and one En.
    b) Every observation has confirmed this.

    Conclusion
    Therefore we can predict that every future examination of X will reveal it to be a Y composed of two Ems and one En.

    This is correct.

    Not it is not *correct*.

    Yes IT IS correct.
    Because X is being defined as the sum of three parts.
    This is what makes it x.
    If you look at X and it is NOT the sum of these 3 parts, it is not X that you’re looking at.
    It’s not X magically changed (which you’re supposing is something that SHOULD HAPPEN based on science. Science has NOTHING to do with the question. Your answer is based on science and supposition. Mine is based on the question’s stated premise. X IS Y + 2 Ens + 1 Em.

    This is not a probable outcome premise.
    It is a premise based on a stated fact of what X is.

    Thumb up 0

     
  109. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Xavier, I’m real heavy into math, every day. I have an engineer that work for me that a math nut. He’s saying the same as me.

    Thumb up 0

     
  110. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny, Don’t use a Riemanian SPHERE, but I rotates stuff about about an A or B axis daily and then use a z axis on a xy plane.

    Thumb up 0

     
  111. Menderman

    December 28th, 2012

    all this “logic” has made me thirsty…I’m off to the Pub….

    g’night kids…play nice!

    Thumb up 0

     
  112. eternal cracker p

    December 28th, 2012

    LOL, thanks Brad, I forgot about that.

    I DON’T CARE.

    Ohh that’s our short stop!

    Thumb up +1

     
  113. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny,
    You wrote -
    @Menderman, as BFH writes:

    X lives in Y.
    Y is in Z.
    Therefore, X lives in Z.

    correct.

    Here’s where I can apply what you’re applying to question 15 to make my statement incorrect.

    Z was observed to be Z over and over again. But, Z changed. Therefore the supposition that X lives in Z is no longer correct.

    Thumb up 0

     
  114. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Sounds awesome Brad; I sometimes feel envious of folks like you: makers of cold, hard, physical things. I salute and applaud you, sir.

    Thumb up 0

     
  115. Mr. Happy

    December 28th, 2012

    Confirmation bias is a harsh mistress.

    Thumb up +1

     
  116. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    a) Islam is a religion composed of beliefs in peace and tolerance.

    b) Every observation or examination has confirmed this.

    Conclusion
    Therefore we can predict that every future examination of Islam will reveal the same beliefs in peace and tolerance.

    ☐ Valid
    ☐ Invalid

    Thumb up +1

     
  117. "That Guy"

    December 28th, 2012

    @Menderman

    In your example:
    So “That Guy”, this argument is valid as well then:

    a) fish live in water.
    b) water is in New Zealand.
    - Therefore fish live in New Zealand.

    According to your premises, the conclusion is invalid.

    Fish are not an individual, and water is not a place.
    If Fish is the name of an individual, and you capitalize water, making it a name, or change the wording of premise a to “Fish live in all water,” then your conclusion would be valid.

    In question #10 there is only one place called Paris, it is in New Zeland, and Jenny lives there.

    Thumb up +2

     
  118. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    BFH,

    The conflict seems to relate to the material that is being EXAMINED.

    “a) Water *IS* a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.”

    So here you argue that *water* can’t “magically” change because it IS “composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom”; so if someone examines something that ain’t composed of those 3 parts and those 3 parts ONLY, then it’s not water, by definition.

    Mine [answer] is based on the question’s stated premise. X IS Y + 2 Ens + 1 Em.

    You right! BUT you neglect premise (b):

    Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.

    You assume that water can’t be other thing that H2O; it has been “defined as the sum of three parts.” So you say: If what we have been calling ‘water’ is mutating into something that ain’t made of 3 parts; then we can’t call it ‘water’ anymore; it just ain’t water, but something else.

    It depends on what IS being ‘examined’ or ‘observed’ in (b). You say: if it’s not composed of 3 H,H,O, then it’s not water as per the definition of (a). I say: what if the material that was being observed as H2O changes?

    Let’s stick NOT to the definition of water, as you do; but on the material that is being ‘examined’, ‘observed’.

    Are you sure that that material can’t change? No you are not.

    We need to consider the object of ‘examination’ (b); not only the structural definition of (a).

    Not only the abstract definition of water, but the material that is being ‘examined’ or ‘observed’ in (b).

    That’s where the plane of logic seems to enter the actual world.

    Thumb up 0

     
  119. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    My examination [not using a microscope, as allowed by (b)] is that water is made up of quarks, neutrinos, and fermions.

    Thumb up +2

     
  120. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    that indeed, Xavier’ opens to another definition of the material being observed in (b).

    Thumb up 0

     
  121. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    I’m NOT thinking about water.
    I removed the nouns and what they mean from the premise in my very first example.

    I have stripped it of all bias.
    The question states that-

    X IS a Y composed of 2 ems and an en. That’s what X is. That is how X is defined in the stated question.

    You’re saying that any future observation of X that doesn’t show a y of 2 ems and an en is to be expected based on probability. This is NOT A QUESTION OD PROBABILITY. It is a question about whether you are looking at X as defined by the questioner.

    You’re logic fails, and furthermore, you’re doing precisely what you’re accusing me of. You keep bringing science and probability and how water can change, etc and what if we’re not looking at what we expect etc. into a question it doesn’t belong in.

    When I applied it to the Paris and New Zealand question you see how introducing it is absurd.

    Thumb up 0

     
  122. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    I’m sticking with the 2 premises. You however neglects premise (b).

    You are neglecting the fact that a material is being ‘examined’ and ‘observed’ in (b).

    You argue that *water* as being defined in (a) as “composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom” ; you argue that this is the definition, and that that definition can’t change.

    Yet you neglect premise (b):
    “Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.”

    SOMETHING MATERIAL is being observed, examined. The question was also about the material being ‘observed’ or ‘examined’ in (b); not only about the structural definiton of (a).

    Could it change? Are you sure it can’t?

    You stick to the structural in premise (a); you neglect that there is a material being ‘observed’ in (b).

    Thumb up 0

     
  123. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    MATH does not CHANGE.
    That is the logical fallacy of your premise, that you want the components to be able to change after it has been defined and cemented as fact.

    4 is comprised of 1+1+2
    All observance of 4 supports this.
    Can we say that a future observance of 4 will be
    1+1+2
    I say yes.
    You say no. And you say it’s because 4 could be 1+1+3 in the future.
    But that won’t be 4. 4 has been defined already.

    Your logical absurdity could be applied to every other logic question and throw it on it’s head by saying – the widgets changed. Paris suffered a seismic shift, it’s now in Greenland.

    Thumb up 0

     
  124. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Could the material being observed in (b) change?

    Thumb up 0

     
  125. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Doesn’t premise (b) point to a material being ‘examined’?

    Thumb up 0

     
  126. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    What if a future observation is flawed?

    We’re not talking about the water, we’re talking about the examination as worded in the conclusion.

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

    Thumb up 0

     
  127. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    I referred to probabilty only as per the question of ‘prediction’ (about the conclusion); not as per premises (a) and (b).

    Thumb up 0

     
  128. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    Aha I see Dagney is on the same track.

    Thumb up 0

     
  129. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    You’re off in the science weeds. Stick to the Math.
    This is the original question-

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

    > 3 is a sum composed of 2+1

    b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.

    > Every time we look at 3 it is 2+1

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

    Therefore we can predict that every future examination of 3 will reveal it is 2+1

    CORRECT. Because if you’re observing 2+2 it is reasonable to expect that you are not looking at 3. It is something OTHER than 3. You can call it 3, but it doesn’t make your logic solid.
    You just cant say, “well, the 3 can become something else.”
    I can do that with EVERY other logic problem.

    Thumb up 0

     
  130. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    Beautifuly put, BFH.

    The mistake you make is there:

    “> Every time we look at 3 it is 2+1″; “every future examination of 3 ”

    What is being ‘examined’ or ‘observed’ is not “3″; but A CONCRETE, an actual element, not a virtual 3 coming from the abstract plane of mathematics.

    Thumb up 0

     
  131. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    O.k. you guys, had to drive home from work. I’m back. Dagny, Xavier. Whats wrong with this. Be specific or it doesn’t count.

    Problem 15 in it’s most simplistic algebraic expression. 2xy. They told you it’s true every time they checked. It’s never been any different. They have good data. Why would I not predict it would be the same tomorrow?

    Thumb up 0

     
  132. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    You would Brad; I would, and I’d storm any bookie giving me odds over the rates of inflation. Nothing wrong in what you wrote.
    Xavier would bet the moon on it!!

    Thumb up 0

     
  133. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    I’m going to repeat this once more and then give up.

    The words “every future examination” are the subject of the conclusion. Reread that sentence until you understand it.

    Now, let’s pretend that idiot X, lost in the weeds, makes an incorrect observation or examination. Wouldn’t that prove the conclusion was invalid?

    Yes it would.

    I know not to argue with people who buy their metaphorical ink by the barrel.

    But mine goes up to 15/15.

    Thumb up 0

     
  134. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

     
  135. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    O.K. let me say this. Fascinating discussion predicated on what walk of life or career you come from. I’m pretty much nut and bolts and I’m kinda picking that up with Mr. Hat which kinda surprises me. Logic to me is proven in inspection and verifying dimensional integrity to some one else s criteria. Be it through paper or electronic data. That process is all mechanical logic. I can tell you this. I f you were a Q.A. organization trying to reject my parts on the criteria we’ve been discussing, I’d kick your ass. However, I do appreciate what you are trying to defend. My world is very planar. That’s three point Dagny. LOL.

    Thumb up 0

     
  136. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    P.S. you guys never answered my question. Still love you both.

    Thumb up 0

     
  137. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    The way I can advocate for your argument, and I’m not seeing you make this argument, is-

    The question is stating that in the future if we LOOK AT 3, which has already been defined as 2+1, and we see 2+2. it doesn’t matter, it’s still 3 because the question is stating we are looking at 3.

    On that front, maybe, maybe the answer could be INVALID. But this wouldn’t be a logic question, it would be a “how many animals did Moses put on the ark?” question.

    Arguing from strictly a logic standpoint. 3 has been defined. And if you go back to look at 3 and now it’s 2+2 instead of 2+1 it is still 3 because, as you’re arguing, “things change.”
    That’s ridiculous.
    Like I said, I could put all logic on its ear by employing this bit of metaphysical hocus pocus.

    Thumb up 0

     
  138. Brown Eyed Girl

    December 28th, 2012

    80%, but my God… it made me feel all sweaty and nervous, exactly the way I felt in high school math classes 40 years ago. Eek.

    Thumb up 0

     
  139. MNP

    December 28th, 2012

    I know you all won’t believe me but I got 15/15.

    Thumb up 0

     
  140. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    BFH,

    The plane of logic is virtual: it is real, material, but it is ABSTRACT.

    An abstract element can’t be ‘examined’; it can not be ‘observed’.

    Have you ever examined a ’3′? Nope. You’ve only examined ‘actualizations’ of ’3′; concrete instances that can never, ever exhaust the virtual figure of 3.

    My point to you is this: what is being ‘observed’ as per premise (b) is an ACTUAL, CONCRETE element; not ’3,’ which belongs to the virtual, to the plane of logic.

    Thumb up 0

     
  141. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

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

    > 3 is a sum composed of 2+1

    b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.

    > Every time we look at 3 it is 2+1

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

    Therefore we can predict that every future examination of 3 will reveal it is 2+1

    X, you’re trying to make the case that 3 might not be 2+1 in a future observation because the examiner might be a retard?

    And that makes 3 open to being something other than 2+1?

    We’re done now.

    Thumb up 0

     
  142. MNP

    December 28th, 2012

    BFH, it’s a logic TEST. the only info relevent to the conclusion is in the question itself.

    Yes, that is why I am right. -bfh

    Thumb up 0

     
  143. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    ’3′ has been defined indeed.

    But this definition has never been examined, observed.

    Thumb up 0

     
  144. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    Brad, can you guarantee me that if I measure a part you made with a micrometer I’ll get the same measurement every time? What if I make a mistake? What if the measurement is made by a child? Or by a broken micrometer?

    Of course you can’t, because you don’t control the examinations. That’s the point: the examination is the subject of the conclusion.
    Not 2xy water. The water has nothing to do with the logic. It’s a ruse, and you and bfh both fell for it.

    Thumb up 0

     
  145. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    MNP, Then you got the last one wrong. LOL.

    Thumb up 0

     
  146. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    The act of examination is the operational nexus between the virtual ’3′ and the actual element being observed; that’s why Xavier emphasizes the act of observing.

    Thumb up 0

     
  147. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Xavier, Actually, I can. They are double checked with precision gage blocks (Joe Blocks) that are certified to the .00005. That’s 50 millions in machinist talk. We are certified to mil-q-9858. Most of our inspection takes place on a DCC Coordinate Measuring Machine driven off the model. It’s always qualified. We build a certain number of parts that if they fail, people die. We have redundant measuring techniques. Having said that, there seems to be no money in it anymore. A new mathematical problem.

    Thumb up 0

     
  148. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    And now Dagny is saying that the question is invalid because we can’t actually touch 3, even though the question gives you the components, and defines these components, for the purpose of using the components to work out a logic problem.
    Clinton would be proud.

    These are not good arguments. Sorry.

    Question 1.
    a) All ducks quack.
    b) Donald is a duck.

    Conclusion
    Therefore: Donald quacks.

    Valid Invalid

    INVALID. When we went back to observe Donald, he wasn’t a duck any longer.
    Wait, maybe he was a duck, the examiner is a retard.

    It doesn’t matter anyway. The question is invalid because Donald is virtual and we can’t “observe” Donald.

    By the way, I know where the concrete is.

    Thumb up +1

     
  149. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    No BFH. I’m saying:

    premise (a): ’3′ = virtual element
    premise (b): the element being examined/observed = actual element

    Conclusion:
    The act of examination: actualization of the virtual
    The act of purely logical thinking: virtualization of the actual

    Thumb up 0

     
  150. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    “And now Dagny is saying that the question is invalid because we can’t actually touch 3, even though the question gives you the components, and defines these components, for the purpose of using the components to work out a logic problem.”

    You can’t touch nor or smell indeed the definition of water as per premise (a). It is a virtual. A virtual is real, but it is abstract. I don’t say it is not REAL.

    Another example:
    You can do a lot of things with an actual mother (a mother that you can examine or observe); but the definition of a mother is a virtual; that of a woman who has never been a mistress, a little girl; it’s the IDEA of a pure mother. It is real,but it is abstract. All the mothers you can examine, touch and smell are actualizations of that idea of Mother; they can’t never, ever exhaust the virtual Mother.
    That virtual Mother is real, but is real on a virtual plane.
    So is the ’3′, so is the definiton of ‘water’ as per premise (a).

    Thumb up 0

     
  151. MNP

    December 28th, 2012

    Test 2 is way harder. I got 12/15.

    Thumb up 0

     
  152. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    That FUR could be a damn good machinist. Won’t make shit for money, but that’s my best compliment. Pure geometrical logic. It’s the truth.

    Thumb up 0

     
  153. Spock

    December 28th, 2012

    I find this continued wrangling over a flawed quiz most illogical.

    Thumb up +3

     
  154. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    Go AMOK yourself, Spock!

    Thumb up +2

     
  155. MNP

    December 28th, 2012

    Quiz is’nt flawed.
    And if you take test 2, question 6 is’nt what you think.
    Read the opening instructions carefully.

    Thumb up 0

     
  156. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny, specifically, where is this wrong? No bull shit about planes that turn into spheres. Where did I go a rye.

    Problem 15 in it’s most simplistic algebraic expression. 2xy. They told you it’s true every time they checked. It’s never been any different. They have good data. Why would I not predict it would be the same tomorrow?

    Thumb up 0

     
  157. MNP

    December 28th, 2012

    Everything they checked up to that point.
    That data says nothing about the future.

    Thumb up 0

     
  158. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    MNp, Bull shit Bro, answer the question above. Those damn Limies switched criteria to satisfy their answer on this premiss.

    Thumb up 0

     
  159. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Come on dude, they asked you to make a logical prediction based on historical data. You and I do that every freaken day. 4340 42 rockwell 160 surface feet, 17-4 h1150 180 surface feet. Come on. Tell me what’s the difference. NADA>

    Thumb up 0

     
  160. MNP

    December 28th, 2012

    If you stand in front of a blue house with an engineer and ask him “what color is that house?” He will say it’s blue.
    If you do the same with a mathematician he will say “it’s blue on this side.”

    Thumb up 0

     
  161. Dagny

    December 28th, 2012

    You would, Brad, as I’ve said before. I’d bet everything I have it would. BUT it’s not ontological certainty.

    It is not a certainty, because there is no guaranty that the actual act of observing an actual element [as per premise (b)] would confirm the virtual definition [as per premise (a)] in every future occurence.

    Not only because of potential mistakes by the observer; or because of potential distortions effected by the very act of observing; but because there is a difference in kind between a logical definition and an actual observation.

    There is a principle of uncertainty accompanying ther very act of observation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw6dI7cguCg

    !!

    Thumb up 0

     
  162. MNP

    December 28th, 2012

    No they did not ask you to make a prediction.
    They asked you to answer the question with only the info given.

    Thumb up 0

     
  163. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    MNP, and a machinist will say ” I can’t stand looking at this piece of shit, it’s not square”

    Done that.

    Thumb up 0

     
  164. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagney it leads back to my first comment referencing Einstein. The entire structure of #15 is to lead us into a discussion on water, and the real subject, the examination, is obfuscated.

    It’s obvious that there’s a huge difference between an examination by microscope(b) and “every future examination”, which may be done incorrectly, or performed with an instrument that reveals new data, or something we can’t imagine. My point is that the term “examination” in the conclusion is unrestricted, wide open, anything’s possible. And “every future examination” includes a long amount of time, too.

    Therefore, we cannot conclude that every examination will reveal the same result in perpetuity – or even for just today.

    Reread the conclusion sentence in #15. The examination is the subject, the focus, the entire point of the statement. Not the water. Forget the water. I’m not suggesting that water (2+1) doesn’t equal 3. And I’m not depending (completely) on incorrect observations. I’m saying that the water is a red herring.

    Brad, I know you’re a good guy, but I don’t think you’re reading what I’m saying, or I’m not saying it right. You cannot guarantee the measurements; I’m not saying you parts are flawed or that they change – I’m saying that actual process of measuring is out of your control, just as the results of the examination in the conclusion of #15 are out of our control.

    Thumb up 0

     
  165. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Dagny, I love you buddy, but your starting to sound like Harry Reid. Answer the question. Anybody answer my premiss.

    Thumb up 0

     
  166. BigFurHat

    December 28th, 2012

    I’m rejecting the premise that there was a “trick” in the question that invalidated it.

    I don’t care that the question states that “every observation confirmed this.”
    That part is a red herring, a strawman amd unnecessary.
    The question STATES WHAT WATER IS!

    The question is -
    can one predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition?

    Yes. The question stated what water is.
    How are you not getting that?

    I can predict what the water will be. Yes. The questioner told me what water is.

    If you take a look and “see” something else, you’re either mistaken or not looking at water. Look again. The chemical composition is there.
    The question told you so.

    Thumb up 0

     
  167. MNP

    December 28th, 2012

    Get a bigger hammer, right?

    Thumb up 0

     
  168. MNP

    December 28th, 2012

    It told you about past examinations of other water.
    Go take test 2.
    I have a feeling you’ll do better with the deductive logic.

    Thumb up 0

     
  169. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    Well I just examined it through my B&L and saw little purple zebras.

    Think about it. Case closed.

    Thumb up 0

     
  170. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Xavier, I know you are a good guy too. But there is nothing on my process that is out of control. I’m damn good at what I do. And I’m survaled

    Thumb up 0

     
  171. Xavier

    December 28th, 2012

    Aha! “you’re either mistaken or not looking at water. ”

    Was that not an examination? Did it reveal your (2+1)?</b)

    No it didn't.

    Therefore the conclusion for #15 is invalid.

    Thumb up 0

     
  172. Bad Brad

    December 28th, 2012

    Spock, That’s some funny shit.

    Thumb up +2

     
  173. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    No, not case closed.

    The question TOLD YOU WHAT WATER IS.

    And it told you you will be looking at water in the future.

    “can one predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition?”

    Doesn’t matter what you claim you are seeing.
    You are looking at water, which in the question is defined as something with fixed components.
    Look again. You’re not seeing what you think you’re seeing.
    You can’t be. Water was defined in the question and you are looking at water, as stated in the question. Show me these new compositions you are seeing that, logically, CANNOT BE THERE.

    Case-closed.

    Thumb up 0

     
  174. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    “They told you it’s true every time they checked. It’s never been any different. They have good data. Why would I not predict it would be the same tomorrow?”

    Brad, what do you want more ???

    LOL!!! Oh man, you’re funny.

    The definition of (a) has been true indeed. They have good data indeed: past examinations of actual elements have always cohered with the definition of (a).

    As I’ve said before, you would bet on it; I would. But it’s not a certainty. WE can’t predict it will always reoccur for eternity.

    The actual element is part of the TIME of now; not the virtual eternity of the plane of mathematics.

    ====

    @ Xavier

    The examination seems indeed to be ‘obfuscated’ by a fixation on the premise (a).

    The term “examination” in the conclusion is unrestricted, wide open, anything’s possible. And “every future examination” includes a long amount of time, too.
    Therefore, we cannot conclude that every examination will reveal the same result in perpetuity – or even for just today.

    Indeed; the act of examination is situated between the virtual (eternity, abstract) and the actual (time, concrete); and we can’t indeed predict that the relation between the actual and the virtual that we have so far experienced will remain forever and ever, since time is a realm of movement and change.

    I agree with you 100%.

    Thumb up 0

     
  175. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    It was still an examination and completely within the parameters of the wording of the conclusion.

    No matter that it was incorrect, it was an examination. Reread the conclusion of #15. It doesn’t matter what I think I’m seeing.

    Thumb up 0

     
  176. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    I’ve been compared to Bill Clinton and Harry Reid tonight. :oops:

    LOL

    Thumb up +2

     
  177. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Justifiably so. Answer the damn question.

    Problem 15 in it’s most simplistic algebraic expression. 2xy. They told you it’s true every time they checked. It’s never been any different. They have good data. Why would I not predict it would be the same tomorrow?

    Thumb up 0

     
  178. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    @BigFur @Dagny,
    Please go up to today’s Stickies. Read the story I posted there.

    You might come away thinking this event defied logic.

    Thumb up 0

     
  179. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    You’re wrong Fur.
    I see the part you’re not getting.
    The question defined a method of observation.
    The conclusion said every observation.
    Yes it is a trick question, they’re all trick questions.

    Thumb up 0

     
  180. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Dagny,
    seriously, with all due respect.
    You’re off in lala land. Xavier is actually coming closer to a solid argument, but I think you’re both wrong.

    The QUESTION emphatically states what water is.
    It then states you’ll be looking at water again in the future.
    Will the same components be there?
    According to the question’s own parameters – YES.

    We can only deal with what the question is giving us.
    It tells us what water is.
    And then it says we will be looking at water again in the future.
    It asks if we will observe water when we LOOK AT WATER.
    OF COURSE. The question is TELLING US WE ARE LOOKING AT WATER.
    If there is a trick here, YOU fell for it.

    Thumb up +1

     
  181. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP- nope.
    I’m not wrong.
    The method of observation is meaningless.

    The question states what water is.
    The question says YOU WILL be looking at water again.
    It’s in the damn question.

    Should we expect the components to be the same?
    Of course. The question TELLS us we are looking at WATER which they
    previously defined. He boxed himself into the only logical conclusion based on the way he crafted the question.
    If this guy thought he was crafting a cute “gotcha” question, the only thing he “got” was hoisted upon his own petard.

    Thumb up +1

     
  182. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    The question defined a method of observation.
    The conclusion said every observation.
    Therefore invalid.

    Thumb up 0

     
  183. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    Reread the conclusion of #15. It doesn’t matter what I think I’m seeing.

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

    We can’t be certain that every future ACTS of examination will replicate the same effect as before.

    The noise does not have to come from the actual element being observed under microscope; but it has to come from the way the act of examination relates to the definition of premise (a), right?

    At the junction between (a) and (b) there is the act of examination; what could change is that triangulation, this relation beteen (a) and (b).

    Thumb up 0

     
  184. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    Brad, what if I order a part that’s .0030, and you sent it to me with a written quality control statement that says you checked it and it conforms to specs?

    Then when I get it, I measure it at .0028.

    (Now don’t get insulted, this is hypothetical)

    According to our little logic puzzle, you’d insist it was .0030 – and you’d be right. But the thickness isn’t the question of our puzzle: the question is, will all examinations be the same?

    And my examination, right or wrong, proves that all examinations aren’t the same.

    Or, what if I have an instrument that measures down to millionths? Same result. My examination differs from yours.

    Am i wording this right? It’s not an attack on your machining ability, I’m just trying to point out the logic in #15 is being misinterpreted.

    Thumb up 0

     
  185. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    The answer has absolutely nothing to do with the composition of water.
    It has to do with the method of observation.

    Thumb up +1

     
  186. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    BFH,

    When you answer me, you never take into account my points, you keep repeating your own mantra. This is what idiots do, by the way.

    “The QUESTION emphatically states what water is.”

    Nope.

    It defined water; it provided a DEFINITION of water. That definition does not coincide with the actual element being observed under microscope.

    Do you understand this?

    Yes or No?

    Thumb up 0

     
  187. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Xavier:
    What the tolerance?

    Thumb up 0

     
  188. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Ya, what was the defined method of observation that means Jack Shit to the premise of the question?
    The question states emphatically what water is. It doesn’t matter at all what “past observations revealed” It’s not germane. They’re telling you what water is.
    Then they ask that when you examine WATER again, not some thing that you are going to determine if it is water, they state you are looking at WATER again, they ask if you can expect to see the same components.
    OF COURSE.
    They told me what water is, then they tell me I’m looking at water again. then they ask if I should expect it to be water.
    DUHHHHHHHH

    Thumb up 0

     
  189. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    I’m out. You guys are my friends, I want to keep it that way.

    Thumb up +1

     
  190. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    BFH,

    Do you not understand that what is being ‘examined’ or ‘observed’ is not a fracking ‘definition’?

    Do you understand that?

    You say I’m in lala-land but you don’t aknowledge the DIFFERENCE IN KIND between an abstract definition and an actual element, a concret THING being examined.

    That’s the ground of discusion; at the junction between this definition (a) and this element being observed, there is the ACT of EXAMINATION.

    Now please integrate those 3 elements in your answers; otherwise, it’s pure nonsense.

    Thumb up 0

     
  191. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Question 15.
    a) Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
    b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.

    the second part is meaningless, not necessary. Water is defined, we don’t need the bit about empirical evidence.
    Conclusion
    Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.

    Valid Invalid

    Valid.
    They are telling me I am observing WATER, which is defined by the question. Of course it will have the same chemical composition. It has to. The question TOLD ME SO.

    I am not going to comment on your comments because you are spraying vinegar at the contrails.

    Thumb up 0

     
  192. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    You’re wrong.

    Examination by microscope.

    Every future examination.

    Thumb up +1

     
  193. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    Brad, bro, it don’t matter. Your part was freakin’ perfect. I measured it wrong.

    But the prediction was that all measurements would be the same, anywhere, anytime. And my fuckup measurement proves the conclusion is invalid.

    But the part you sent was right on the money.

    Thumb up 0

     
  194. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    Exactly my point, MNP. thanks.

    Thumb up +2

     
  195. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    @bfh

    Thus my purple zebra comment. Faulty examination (and other things) prove the conclusion invalid.

    Thumb up 0

     
  196. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP, DAGNY, Xavier.
    It doesn’t matter if you’re looking at it through an empty toilet paper roll.
    The question is TELLING YOU YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT THEY ALREADY PREVIOUSLY DEFINED AS WATER.
    The methodology of observation is meaningless.

    Done.

    Thumb up 0

     
  197. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP O.K. I lied. Ain’t got shit to do with the microscope. They posed the question, they provided the criteria. Slam dunk mofo. By their own definition. It’s not your job or ours to second guess the fing results. Make your logical decision based on what was provided. Now I’m out.

    Thumb up 0

     
  198. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    There is only one correct answer to the question.
    Invalid.
    You cannot disregard half of the sylligism.

    Thumb up 0

     
  199. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    You’re wrong.

    Thumb up 0

     
  200. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    TELLING YOU YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT THEY ALREADY PREVIOUSLY DEFINED AS WATER.

    Exactly. That’s the damn criteria.

    Thumb up 0

     
  201. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Great, now I pissed off the only friend I got here.
    It’s just a stupid math quiz.
    Fine, water’s water.
    You’re still wrong.

    Thumb up +2

     
  202. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP. The hell you did. And I’m not wrong. Talk to you tomorrow bro.

    Thumb up +2

     
  203. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Brad,
    what they are trying to hang their hats on is that they looked at this thing with a microscope and saw these 2 things.

    Now they are going to look at this thing with their eyes, and they want to know if you’re going to see the same 2 things you saw with the microscope.

    Then they are going to say, “AHA!” You can’t see with your eyes what you can see with a microscope!
    Gotcha!!!

    As I stated from the beginning, it is NOT a logic question, it is Mose’s ark question.

    Too bad the guy, in his question, stated what water was, and then said I was looking at water again and asked if “I could predict that the water had the same components in an examination.”

    Yes. I can. YOU defined the water. and YOU told me I was looking at water.
    I don’t even NEED THE FUCKING microscope or my eyes.

    Meanwhile, Dagny is off explaining that components change and this is the reason the question is invalid, but I’m supposed to take that seriously, as seriously as X is taking them, because, any port in a storm, I suppose.

    Thumb up 0

     
  204. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    “the second part is meaningless, not necessary.”

    That’s been my criticism to you from the start.

    Premise (b) is important, meaningful because it points to an actual element being observed.

    Whereas (a) defines water; you might say ‘it states what water is’; but that ‘statement’, that definition, does not coincide with the ACTUAL element being observed as per (b).

    You don’t understand, BFH, that there is RADICAL DIFFERENCE beteen the virtual plan of concepts and mathematical functions (wherein lies the ‘statement’, the definition of water’) and the actual THING being observed under microscope.

    Thumb up 0

     
  205. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    You’re going to strike out the (b) ‘examination by microscope’ because it’s inconvenient to your argument? The examination is the heart of the entire question.

    I really expected better.

    I don’t understand why you cannot see that the question isn’t about the long term stability and predictability of the chemical composition of water.

    It’s about the examination of water.

    Examinations may show exactly what we expect:2+1=3. They may show something else – even good scientists make mistakes and have tainted samples. New instruments may reveal things we cannot imagine. I might see purple zebras. Any of those possibilities show that “every future examination” might not reveal the same chemical composition. And the future includes a lot of time and possibilities.

    I don’t see why you can’t let go of this ‘chemistry doesn’t change’ argument. Of course it doesn’t change. But that’s not the point. I’m not being a smartass, but seriously – reread the conclusion.

    Thumb up +3

     
  206. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    “It doesn’t matter if you’re looking at it through an empty toilet paper roll.”

    I agree, but that is not the point; never has been.

    Do you understand the difference between an virtual and an actual.

    The definition of a mother never coincides with the next you’ll meet. There is a relation, a junction; but this junction is non-coincidental — because that particular you’ll meet is far from exhausting all the potential to come, the actual mothers, and the past mothers.

    Thumb up 0

     
  207. grayscape

    December 29th, 2012

    GUYS! GUYS! GUYS! Can we get back to mocking progressives?

    Thumb up +2

     
  208. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    By the way, BFH, everything Xavier has written coheres perfectly with what I’ve written, and vice versa.

    Thumb up 0

     
  209. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Don’t put words in my mouth.
    Now you’re wrong about where I’m hanging my hat.
    The word “every” in the conclusion is the crux of the problem.
    Xavier is right.

    Thumb up +1

     
  210. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Fur, Exactly. I’m thinking they bombed out on every science project they ever turned in for a grade in school. Stop reading to much into this. follow the very simple criteria that was defined. There is only one result. The fucking limies have turned us against each other. Read the original criteria with out getting into the weeds. Just logically follow what the premiss is.
    I know this isn’t changing your guys minds. But you gotta admit, it’s been enlightening. I’m really packing it in this time. FUR this has been a great debate. Let’s make some bad ass parts together sometime. You would dig it.

    Thumb up 0

     
  211. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    @MNP

    The word ‘every’ in the conclusion points to a potentially infinity of future acts of examinations.

    In each of them, the thing being observed (b) does NEVER coincide with the definition of premise (a) — since that definition can NOT be observed under ANY microscope: why? because a definition is not an actual thing, it is abstract, virtual (yet real).

    The question is about the corelation between (a) and (b) as per the act of examination: either actualizing the definition (a), or virtualizing the element (b).

    In this process, BFH is negating the potential for ‘noise’.

    Thumb up 0

     
  212. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    It’s not about the examination of water.
    And it’s certainly not about “chemistry doesn’t change.”
    I have no idea where you got that. Perhaps it’s because that is what Dagny is bringing to this logic discussion and I’m mocking it.(and then Dagny accuses ME of bringing in science, mind you. And then calling ME the idiot.)

    My premise, from the beginning, is stripped of all
    bias. I don’t need microscopes, water or anything else to simply say,
    the guy defines a thing (mud)as composed of these other things- bugles and tofutti.
    He says that microscopic examination reveals this to be true. But it is not offered as the definitive way that these components were observed. It was “a way.” Not THE way.
    It then asks if a future examination of “mud” will verify the existence of bugles and tofutti.

    YES. They stated what mud is. They stated I am looking at mud. Logically bugles and tofutti are in the mud.
    I don’t even need to look at it. Bit for the sake of argument, where does this premise state what I can or can’t use to examine the mud?
    Where does it say that there are no more microscopes?
    Where in the question is that caveat proffered?

    The only thing in the question that is emphatic is what mud is, and that we are looking at mud once again.
    So can I be sure there are bugles and tofutti in the mud?
    The way the question is framed, YES.

    Going all Dagny and saying things change, lalala, is introducing REAl WORLD knowns to a question, and in a logic question, that is a BZZZZZZZZZZ.
    We only go by what is stated.
    Mud is mud is mud.
    And I can look at it with a microscope the second time.
    There was absolutely nothing stated about microscopes being suddenly unavailable.
    In the question, microscopes exist.
    You are the one that is introducing NEW STRONGER microscopes. Or no microscopes at all.
    Or mutations to the mud, or probability.
    This question knows none of these things.

    Thumb up 0

     
  213. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    With all due respect Dagny, you’re not helping.

    Thumb up 0

     
  214. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    “Going all Dagny and saying things change, lalala, is introducing REAl WORLD knowns to a question, and in a logic question, that is a BZZZZZZZZZZ.”

    You are negating AGAIN, you fool, that the thing being observed under the microscope belongs to the world of time: IT IS CONCRETE, it is not a mathematical function, it is each time, an ACTUAL ELEMENT, NOT AN ABSTRACT DEFINITION (A).

    Do you not understand this? Just yes or no.

    Thumb up 0

     
  215. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    You’re wrong Fur.
    Just let it go.

    Thumb up 0

     
  216. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    I have not seen you fisk one of my comments, and I have dissected yours and X’s many times.

    How is what I’m stating wrong?
    Just saying it’s wrong is not very compelling.
    And Dagby,
    it took me awhile to realize you’re just fooling around.
    That was indeed a spot in imitation of Professor Irwin Corey.
    Well done.
    You really had me going.

    Thumb up +1

     
  217. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    I’ve said you act like an idiot because you never incorporate into your reasonment the fact that the thing being observed under the microscope, in each and every instance, is an ACTUAL ELEMENT.

    What could change is not the definition of (a) OF COURSE.

    What could change is the relationship between the thing being observed and the definition as per the ACT OF OBSERVING.

    There is a potential for noise; and you are negating it by claiming idiotically that the definition of premise (a) is eternal. OF COURSE IT IS. But that’s not the point,

    The point is about the act of examination as per the relationship between the thing being observed (an actual thing) and the definition (a virtual).

    Thumb up 0

     
  218. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    I’m not fooling around, lol; just point to the flaw in my analysis; instead of negating the importance of (b).

    Thumb up 0

     
  219. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    I will reiterate what I stated about this Logic Test a long time ago:

    Logic told me not to bother taking the stupid thing in the first place!!!!!

    Look at where you guys are at after all this teeth gnashing, almost ready to admit you shouldn’t have taken it either!

    Don’t tell me to shut up either. Go look at the big boobies story Cardigan just posted. ;-)

    Thumb up +2

     
  220. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    I’ve said you act like an idiot

    Out of line. You just lost. Tap out.

    Thumb up 0

     
  221. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    I lost, really? How come? Besides, I don’t care about losing or winning; I care about evolving my capacity to think.

    Thumb up 0

     
  222. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Because your argument is just pigheaded wrong.
    There is only one correct answer to the question.
    I have told you why the answer is “invalid” but you refuse to accept it.
    It seems that you will only conceed when a PHD in mathematics tells you you’re wrong. And when he or she does, they will tell you the same thing I have.

    Thumb up 0

     
  223. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    Brad,

    serious question: don’t you understand the radical difference between an actual thing you can hold in your hand and observe with your eyes — VERSUS — a mathematical function or a logical definition (such as water = H20).

    Thumb up 0

     
  224. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    UP YOURS KAIRN!
    (Wait, did I hear boobies?)

    Teeth gnashing? Not at all.
    Remember My Cousin Vinny?
    Macchio said his family would argue anything?
    They are PIKERS.

    Ive been known to argue a point I don’t even believe because it’s so much fun.

    I don’t even mind the idiot stuff. I’ve heard worse. I don’t care.

    But, the time to stop, I guess, is when the lurkers are getting uncomfortable.

    I’m going to go look at Asian porn for awhile.

    Thumb up 0

     
  225. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    >I lost, really? How come? Besides, I don’t care about losing or winning; I care about evolving my capacity to think.>

    Hear! Hear!

    Thumb up 0

     
  226. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    It’s not about the examination of water.

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

    I don’t know how you can read the question and say that. In fact, the word examination is used more than any other word in the question.

    “Where does it say that there are no more microscopes?
    Where in the question is that caveat proffered?”

    It doesn’t say that, and you know it. What it does say is “every future examination” without restrictions.

    He says that microscopic examination reveals this to be true. But it is not offered as the definitive way that these components were observed. It was “a way.” Not THE way.

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

    You are the one that is introducing NEW STRONGER microscopes. Or no microscopes at all.

    Exactly. Because the phrase “every future examination” includes all examinations, under all possible conditions, in the entire future.

    I know mud is mud is mud. But all examinations are not equal. And whether you can see it or not, they are the gist of the question.

    Thumb up 0

     
  227. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP,
    You incomplete me.

    Thumb up 0

     
  228. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    You are of bad faith, BFH; refusing to aknowledge the difference in kind between a definition and an actual thing.

    I’m off too.

    Thumb up 0

     
  229. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Ya can’t think if you insist only only hearing your side of the argument. And I know what you next retort is. Again.

    Problem 15 in it’s most simplistic algebraic expression. 2xy. They told you it’s true every time they checked. It’s never been any different. They have good data. Why would I not predict it would be the same tomorrow?

    Thumb up 0

     
  230. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    yes, Xavier is right: because the ACT of Examination is between the actual thing being observed in (b) and the virtual definition in (a).

    BFH can’t see this because he refuses to aknowledge the ACTUAL character of the THING being OBSERVED in every instance.

    Thumb up 0

     
  231. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    Brad I’m gearing up for surgery and can’t drink.
    Do a couple shots of single malt for me bro.

    Thumb up +2

     
  232. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Xavier, Good luck bro. I hope it’s minor. I also hope we are all buds tomorrow. We should be. I’m also very worried about Racist. Anybody have any up dates.

    Thumb up +2

     
  233. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    by the way, Fur, I do respect you a bunch; I didn’t mean to say you are an idiot; only that you did act like one. Seems to me I have less patience than I thought I had.

    Thumb up 0

     
  234. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    @Xavier
    Best wishes for you. And a speedy recovery. Take care.

    Thumb up +1

     
  235. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    Haven’t hear anything about Racist but Kateshon showed up over at AS a week or so ago.

    Thumb up +2

     
  236. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Dagny, oh I see, I’m the idiot. Well my wife agrees. LOL.

    Thumb up 0

     
  237. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Xavier. Good luck with. You’ll be on my mind.

    Thumb up +1

     
  238. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    Thanks guys, nothing major. And they’ve been giving me the same stuff that killed Michael Jackson. No shit.

    Thumb up +2

     
  239. sybilll

    December 29th, 2012

    BFH, love ya bunches, but posting this whilst some of us that are known to embibe during the Holidays…suckz

    Thumb up 0

     
  240. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    So it’s more about the fun of arguing for the sake of arguing than anything else.

    Thumb up 0

     
  241. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    X,
    Seriously, this is your worst effort yet.You were making headway, but you self-destructed.

    >>>>>It’s not about the examination of water.

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

    I don’t know how you can read the question and say that. In fact, the word examination is used more than any other word in the question.>>>>

    _Because this is a logic question. It’s not about the examination of water. It’s about disseminating what is in the question devoid of real world bias. That has to be stripped away. You’re relying too much on reality and assumption._

    “Where does it say that there are no more microscopes?
    Where in the question is that caveat proffered?”

    It doesn’t say that, and you know it. What it does say is “every future examination” without restrictions.

    _ Where does it say without restrictions? It mentions microscopes and future observation. You’re bringing in the assumption of different microscopes “in the future.” Meaning “futuristic stuff.” The more valid assumption is they are talking about time. What you’ve done is not valid in a logic question. This world states MICROSCOPES. It has the microscopes that saw the two components in the water. That’s it. Oh, and the way that they could see the components before the microscope VERIFIED what they observed. Could be they saw it with their eyes. Who knows? The question doesn’t state that._

    He says that microscopic examination reveals this to be true. But it is not offered as the definitive way that these components were observed. It was “a way.” Not THE way.

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

    _That doesn’t state what you claim it is stating. It’s simply stating that microscopic examination “confirmed: this. So, one can assume there was another way they knew the components and the microscope “confirmed” (verify, reinforce, validate)it._______

    You are the one that is introducing NEW STRONGER microscopes. Or no microscopes at all.

    Exactly. Because the phrase “every future examination” includes all examinations, under all possible conditions, in the entire future.

    ____ This is totally made up. Future refers to time. Where in this question does time lead to different methodology. This is real world assumption that you are bringing to a logic question. Furthermore, all future examinations can refer to all examinations in the next 5 minutes. Future is not infinity. Future means the time period following this moment.____

    I know mud is mud is mud. But all examinations are not equal. And whether you can see it or not, they are the gist of the question.

    ____Even if it is the gist, I showed how you make all sorts of assumptions to fit the outcome you want.
    I am dealing with exactly what is stated in the question and using the definitions of words, not the definitions you want them to be.____

    Good luck with the operation. I hope they use futuristic microscopes.

    Thumb up 0

     
  242. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Good luck X. Hope you have a speedy recovery.

    Thumb up +2

     
  243. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Oh hell no. It is about logic. But we are all buds and do share a common bond. Not worth destroying that.

    Thumb up 0

     
  244. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    Certainly MNP. You guys were like pigs in slop over this debate. You all loved every word. Got yer mental juices going fer sure. Now all shake hands and save your energies for the next rowdy debate.

    Thumb up +1

     
  245. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP
    Said:
    So it’s more about the fun of arguing for the sake of arguing than anything else.>>>

    Sometimes, yes. But I don’t recall ever doing that on iOTW unless I said, I’m going to play Devil’s advocate.

    I wouldn’t drive someone nuts on iOTW for the sport of it.
    That’s for friends I can look in the face!
    lol

    Thumb up +1

     
  246. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    I was right, it’s all about the arguing with you.
    Fine, this is not a debatable question. It is a math question. There is only one right answer.
    Invalid.
    Extempraneous assumptions are not allowed in a mathematical logic question.
    The examination by microscope verified the molecular make up of the water, yes. That particular examination method does not gaurantee that all future examinations will bring the same result.
    It’s not about the water, it’s about the question of one method proving the results every other method.

    Thumb up 0

     
  247. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    @BigFur

    “I wouldn’t drive someone nuts on iOTW for the sport of it.”

    Yeah, that’s right!!! You just let the rest of us ‘Gingersnap’ people into the loony bin for sport! I have to admit, that was kind of fun. I feel so ashamed. ;-)

    Thumb up +1

     
  248. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Not for me. Defeat this.
    Problem 15 in it’s most simplistic algebraic expression. 2xy. They told you it’s true every time they checked. It’s never been any different. They have good data. Why would I not predict it would be the same tomorrow?

    Ya can’t. That’s the equation. Bullet proof. I win, as usual.

    I hereby grant you the right to call me one nasty name.

    Thumb up +2

     
  249. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    I think I’ve probably been overly polite here and apparently that’s seen as a sign of weakness.

    The fact is, I’m correct – according to the test – and you’re wrong. All the responses you made to my last post are nearly incoherent. As for your “assumption” comments, I’m reading exactly what the question says, and apparently with considerably more accuracy than you are, and in the manner in which the writer intended.

    I will give you credit for some basic, probably instinctual form of sophistry. I mean: “disseminating what is in the question devoid of real world bias” is almost prose. Meaningless, but almost prose nonetheless. Do you really think the future is not infinity, in the context of this conversation? Wow.
    .

    Thumb up +2

     
  250. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    It is’nt an algebra question though.
    I’m going to save that gift for some other time Brad.
    Glad I could give you so much pleasure tonight Kairn. ;)

    Thumb up +1

     
  251. MaryfromMarin

    December 29th, 2012

    Oy.

    Thumb up +2

     
  252. MaryfromMarin

    December 29th, 2012

    @Xavier–

    Holding you up in prayer for your surgery.

    Thumb up 0

     
  253. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    @MNP
    You are so welcome. You guys made me laugh tonight. After my traumatic event yesterday afternoon, it felt good to have a reason to laugh out loud. That’s what makes iOTW so special.

    A special bunch of the funniest serious people in the world. Is that an oxymoron?

    Thumb up +2

     
  254. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    I love you guys. And, I can be an asshole. But, right is right. I got one hell of a record against sophisticated quality organizations. The trick with them is stay on easily defensible ground. No different here. You can call me anything, just don’t call me late for dinner.. What am I saying? I cook it here.

    Thumb up 0

     
  255. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP, EVERYTHING in life is an algebraic equation. That’s no shit.

    Thumb up 0

     
  256. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    What traumatic event? You get too close to a spinning chuck?

    Thumb up 0

     
  257. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP, I pitched a 50 taper holder out of a freaken Mitsubishi Horizontal right past my head at 12k one time. That was a life changing event. If it wasn’t for my ninja like cat reflexes we wouldn’t be having this conversation. They purchased the machine back and left the country. To this day I imagine there’s a couple Japs preying to a plastic model of a zero and cussing my name.

    Thumb up +1

     
  258. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    That’s a come to Jesus moment I’d say.

    Thumb up +1

     
  259. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    @MNP
    I posted my traumatic event story on the Sticky Stuff thread today 12/28. Unfortunately that thread has now been archived. If you want to read it, you’ll have to look a little harder to find it now.

    No spinning chuck. Just saved the life of a young boy.

    Thumb up 0

     
  260. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    I still got the underwear.

    Thumb up 0

     
  261. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    @Bad Brad,
    That was a close call!!! I bet your legs got noodley after you realized how close a call that was.

    Thumb up 0

     
  262. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    That was a good story, Kairn. I’ve never been involved with anything like that but have been the first at car accidents and once got a guy out of a burning vehicle. It was pretty intense and I know what you mean about the decompression. Good job – that may be the chance for him to turn things around.

    Thumb up +2

     
  263. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    @Xavier
    Thank you for reading my story. Being right there in a life or death situation, especially when it is a young person is pretty intense. We do these things out of a love for our fellow man. I think that is why God loves his human creations so much. We are imbued with so much potential for good.

    Thumb up +2

     
  264. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    It amazes me how we meander along with our boring lives and then every once on a while, a few seconds changes things forever. For you, your husband, the kid, his family. Suddenly everything’s different. Thank God you had the acuity to call 911 without hesitation. Many would have walked away and said, “Not my kid, not my problem.”

    Thumb up +2

     
  265. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Oh, so I see. This prig gets to be pedantic in order to construct some sort of gotcha that hinges on the parsing of what IS IS, but if I define future by what it actually means, THE MOMENT AFTER THIS ONE, you whine foul.

    Words mean things, particularly in logic questions.
    They don’t get to mean what YOU want them to mean, and this becomes Xavier law, and there shall be no other interpretation but mine.
    At best this debate is a wash.

    AGAIN-

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

    *The reason for this sentence is to establish that a thing is being defined. It tells you in plain language what this thing is.*

    b) Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.

    * This does not state that the only way this thing was defined was by microscope alone. In fact, it states that the microscope CONFIRMED what they knew to be true. One can assume that there was another way as well. This isn’t about what you know about your eyes or microscopes, or microscopes versus eyes, or what it takes to see molecules. You’re boxing yourself in with your bias about what you know to be true in the real world. We only have what is true in this premise.

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

    Now. Future DOES NOT refer to infinity. It does not refer to advanced technologies. These are things you are applying. Future means the moment after this moment. Every future examination could very well me one more examination. It’s open to interpretation.

    And one can assume that the observation will be made the way it was made the first time. And this is where you are failing. You’re creating things outside the stated premise, and you’re getting pissed that I can be as pedantic as the author of this question.

    The premise states what water is and states that this was verified by microscope, and leaves open the possibility of some other way, because they said the microscope verified what they knew to be true.

    Then it states we will, in the future, look at water again. WATER. The thing that HAS, by definition, the two components. We don’t even have to look at it to know, logically, that any subsequent look at the thing will have these two other things. It’s stated in the guy’s own question!!

    Where are you getting this fantasy of other technologies that are going to make you see purple zebras instead of the two other components?
    Oh, that’s right. You’re just adding this to the premise because… well, only you can say why.
    Logic questions do not allow you to simply create a world in order to get the outcome you want.

    You’ve failed.
    Coherent enough?

    Thumb up +2

     
  266. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Is this argument open to anyone, or are you baiting Xavier specifically?

    Thumb up +1

     
  267. Menderman

    December 29th, 2012

    I just got back from the pub…and you dumbasses are still arguing logic? Really? Kairn saved a life, but that doesn’t mattter to you?

    No wonder a real conservative can’t get elected.

    Peeps, get some focus will ya?!

    Thumb up +2

     
  268. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Come on back Dagny.

    Thumb up 0

     
  269. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    I don’t think the author is being pedantic at all.
    On the contrary he’s seems very imaginative.

    Thumb up +1

     
  270. Menderman

    December 29th, 2012

    Kairn, ignore these people, just keep doing what is in your heart…..

    Thumb up +2

     
  271. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    More coherent, but still incorrect. Just because you disagree with me and the people who created the test doesn’t make you right.

    I don’t know if you’re really incapable of seeing my point, or you’re just being obtuse. I suppose it doesn’t matter.

    And for the record, I’m not whining. You’re the one editing posts and striking out parts of the question you’ve arbitrarily deemed meaningless.

    I suppose it hinges on what the phrase “every future examination” means. I contend it means 5 minutes, 5 years, 5 centuries from now, along with all the implications that brings.

    And frankly, you’ve been a bit rude. It’s one thing to debate but your snide remarks left me no choice but to respond in kind.

    Thumb up +2

     
  272. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Kairn, ” I bet your legs got noodley after you realized how close a call that was.”

    ACTUALLY, no big deal. If you work around stuff that spins fast most your life, you pick up the vibrations and know when shits not right.

    Thumb up 0

     
  273. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Did the retention knob break?

    Thumb up 0

     
  274. Menderman

    December 29th, 2012

    Why are we fighting each other?

    Thumb up 0

     
  275. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Cause I’m right and he’s wrong.

    Thumb up +1

     
  276. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP, Bellevue washer total failure. However, Mits are natoriuos for breaking pull studs.

    Thumb up 0

     
  277. Menderman

    December 29th, 2012

    ok, I’m out….

    Thumb up 0

     
  278. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    I’m not fighting.
    I was having fun.
    But snowflake Xavier seems to have
    been offended.

    Oh dear. Note to self:
    Xavier is delicate.

    Thumb up 0

     
  279. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Put an M5 before the rapid spindle retract.

    Thumb up 0

     
  280. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    That’s the most childish thing I’ve ever seen to do. And you’ve had your moments.

    Thumb up 0

     
  281. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    I have to agree with you on that. This is fun.

    Thumb up +1

     
  282. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    I don’t know, that DHUUUUU he sent at me was pretty sophmoric.

    Thumb up +1

     
  283. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    Insulting your readers generally isn’t considered the height of good blog policy or intelligence.

    Thumb up +1

     
  284. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Shit, spelt it wrong.
    DUHHHHHHH.

    Thumb up 0

     
  285. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP, that one was just wrapping up to speed. Hadn’t even read the H value yet. It was a hoot. But I’m 56 and been doing this all my life. That’s no shit, my dad was a machinist, my mom was a machinist. I’m comfortable with controlled chaos.
    This conversation was awesome. Makes you think about others vantage points. But right is right.

    And I was, ah never mind.

    Thumb up +1

     
  286. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Listen. You wrote THIS before anything “rude” was ever posted by me to you :

    I think I’ve probably been overly polite here and apparently that’s seen as a sign of weakness.

    The fact is, I’m correct – according to the test – and you’re wrong. All the responses you made to my last post are nearly incoherent. As for your “assumption” comments, I’m reading exactly what the question says, and apparently with considerably more accuracy than you are, and in the manner in which the writer intended.

    I will give you credit for some basic, probably instinctual form of sophistry. I mean: “disseminating what is in the question devoid of real world bias” is almost prose. Meaningless, but almost prose nonetheless. Do you really think the future is not infinity, in the context of this conversation? Wow.

    Please direct me to anything I wrote that was either rude or insulting towards you prior to you writing what you wrote.

    Thumb up 0

     
  287. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Xavier, nobodies being insulted. Your a valued member. Play the game. Everyone here values your opinion.

    Thumb up +1

     
  288. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    What? Come on, say it.

    Thumb up 0

     
  289. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Yea, he was rude to me first.

    Thumb up +1

     
  290. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    I said “duhhhhhhh” AT you, MNP?

    Thumb up 0

     
  291. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    I thought it was at me. Let me check.
    I’ll be right back.

    Thumb up +1

     
  292. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Me
    The answer has absolutely nothing to do with the composition of water.
    It has to do with the method of observation.

    You
    Ya, what was the defined method of observation that means Jack Shit to the premise of the question?
    The question states emphatically what water is. It doesn’t matter at all what “past observations revealed” It’s not germane. They’re telling you what water is.
    Then they ask that when you examine WATER again, not some thing that you are going to determine if it is water, they state you are looking at WATER again, they ask if you can expect to see the same components.
    OF COURSE.
    They told me what water is, then they tell me I’m looking at water again. then they ask if I should expect it to be water.
    DUHHHHHHHH

    Thumb up 0

     
  293. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    It was in a comment responding to you. But in no shape way or form was it saying “duhhhhhhhhh” at you, as if you’re dumb.
    I’m stating three things that I believe to be true and follow it with a “duhhhhhh” like, if this this and this is true then this is true. Duhh. How in the world is this INSULTING TOWARDS YOU, and sophomoric?

    Thumb up 0

     
  294. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Was’nt insulting.
    When I read it I just pictured a kid saying DUHHHHH.

    Thumb up +1

     
  295. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    I’m not going to go through your comments. If it meant anything to you, as a person, or as a professional blogger, you’d have done it yourself. As has just been demonstrated, your post-interpretation of comments and a reader’s real-time interpretation may be different.

    I should have listened to myself in the comment I made at the top of the post about not arguing with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

    Thumb up 0

     
  296. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Guess the fun’s done?
    It was fun FUR, no hard feelings here.
    God bless.
    P.S you’re wrong.

    Thumb up +1

     
  297. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    >I’m going to repeat this once more and then give up.

    The words “every future examination” are the subject of the conclusion. Reread that sentence until you understand it.

    Now, let’s pretend that idiot X, lost in the weeds, makes an incorrect observation or examination. Wouldn’t that prove the conclusion was invalid?

    Yes it would.

    I know not to argue with people who buy their metaphorical ink by the barrel.

    But mine goes up to 15/15. >

    When I read this comment I had no idea who you were talking to, but I noted that it was queer. It sounded an awful lot like someone who was starting to get personal, and they were only getting started.

    This is a matter of someone unable to smell their own bad breath. Everything you’re accusing me of, you initiated well before I ever addressed you in the comments.
    The biggest difference is, I don’t give a shit if someone wants to lob in a personal attack. I’ll play along. But you care. You get the vapors when someone merely turns your passive aggressive bullshit into a boomerang.

    Thumb up +1

     
  298. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP,
    That is how these fun threads end 99% of the time.
    And as everyone knows, we don’t hold grudges because these are just sparring matches to keep one in shape for when we go toe to toe with the left.
    If somebody doesn’t understand the spirit of the banter, like the vast majority do, there is nothing I can do about that.

    Thumb up +2

     
  299. Jack Daniels

    December 29th, 2012

    Finally took the quiz

    14/15

    Thumb up 0

     
  300. Xavier

    December 29th, 2012

    “Everything you’re accusing me of, you initiated well before I ever addressed you in the comments.”

    bfh, the only accusation I made was that you were “a bit rude”. As I mentioned a comment or two up, after the fact and real time interpretation of comments may differ. What I saw as an attempt at humor then, you see as passive aggressive bullshit now. I honestly tried to be polite and well, logical, most of the time, as I think most of my comments will show. I don’t see that I have “the vapors”, in fact I go out of my way to be polite and ignore caustic comments, at least for a while.

    It would be fairly easy for me to use what you’ve said to me in the last few comments to launch an ugly personal attack; I’ll not go that route but will ask that you consider that the accusations you’re making against me might not be entirely accurate.

    And before you accuse me of mealy-mouthed bullshit, as I’ve heard you say before, let me be clear: I’m not asking your forgiveness and I may have made mistakes in this conversation, but your attitude and words were far from exemplary. I still think my perspective on #15 is correct, and no matter how loudly you proclaim victory, it doesn’t make it so.

    Thumb up 0

     
  301. Jack Daniels

    December 29th, 2012

    Just read the thread.

    Y’know, even the greatest philosophers have been known to err occasionally…

    Myself included!

    LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Seriously, this is why I love iOTW so much!!

    Thumb up +2

     
  302. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    Big Fur Hat,

    You are like the fool or the child saying: no, Magritte is wrong, this IS a pipe.

    http://www.maicresse.fr/imagaes/201209/magritte-la-trahison-de-image.jpg

    No it is not, you idiot: you conflate the definition of water (a) with the thing itself being observed in (b).

    You can’t smoke with Magritte’s pipe; it’s a virtual one. Not an actual one.

    You don’t understand the difference between a virtual and an actual.

    Thumb up +1

     
  303. eternal cracker p

    December 29th, 2012

    What goes around the world but stays in a corner?

    A Postage Stamp.

    Thumb up +1

     
  304. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Hey Xavier,
    I’ll leave you with this-

    I think I’ve probably been overly polite here and apparently that’s seen as a sign of weakness.

    All the responses you made to my last post are nearly incoherent.

    I will give you credit for some basic, probably instinctual form of sophistry.

    And I should have known better to get into an argument with someone who buys invisible ink by the shitload.

    Thumb up 0

     
  305. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    BFH said >I’m going to repeat this once more and then give up.

    Ya right.

    This is not a debatable question. It is a math question. There is only one right answer.
    Invalid.

    The examination by microscope verified the molecular make up of the water, yes. That particular examination method does not gaurantee that all future examinations will bring the same result.
    It’s not about the water, it’s about the question of one method proving the results of every other method.

    Thumb up 0

     
  306. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Cubes fall from the sky. Each cube has either a 1, a 2 or a 3 on it.

    Cubes with 2 written on it were defined as Cube 2s.

    Periodically, you will be taken into a room that has a Cube 2 on a table. And we know what a Cube 2 is – It is a Cube with a 2 written on it.

    Will your examination of a Cube 2 ever be anything other than a Cube with a 2 written on it?

    Thumb up 0

     
  307. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    I knew you could’nt give up.

    Thumb up 0

     
  308. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Answer the question

    Thumb up 0

     
  309. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    If #15 on test 1 is this contentious go take test 2.
    We could argue about at least half of those questions.
    Come on, this is fun.

    Thumb up 0

     
  310. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Only cubes in the room will.

    Thumb up 0

     
  311. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    It’s not about the cubes, It’s the room.

    Thumb up 0

     
  312. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Seriously though your numbered cubes in the room or outside the room are not analogous to #15.
    It’s not the water.

    Thumb up 0

     
  313. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    No. What is fun is the question I posed, because it is the heart of question 15.

    A Cube 2 is sitting right in front of you, this is not in question, it IS a Cube2, which means it is a cube with a 2 written on it.

    If a Cube 2 is right there in front of you, can it ever be anything other than a cube with a 2 written on it? NO MATTER HOW YOU EXAMINE IT, can it ever be anything other than a cube with a 2 on it if it is a cube with a 2 written on it?

    This has been my contention from the very beginning, but you have all failed to see the logic.

    The writer tells you what this substance water is. Then he puts water in front of you and asks you if it can be anything other than what he put in front of you.

    You’re all off on this “examination” bender as if this means jack squat. It doesn’t.
    You’re being told in the question that what you’re examining is the exact same thing as you previously examined. Water is water is water, Mud is mud is mud, and cube 2s are cube 2s are cube 2s.

    The verification is in the question itself.

    Thumb up 0

     
  314. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Seriously though your numbered cubes in the room or outside the room are not analogous to #15.
    It’s not the water.>>>

    Ohhhhhhhhh. So it’s water that we have to be thinking of in this logic problem.
    As opposed to forgetting that Paris is not in New Zealand.

    I get it. You get to move the goal posts in order to be right.

    Be a sport and answer the question I posed independent of your particular parameters of question 15.
    This is an entirely new question.
    What’s your answer?

    Thumb up 0

     
  315. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    “And as everyone knows, we don’t hold grudges because these are just sparring matches to keep one in shape for when we go toe to toe with the left.” BFH.

    I see now, you’re playing the part of the prog.
    Very good performance.

    Paris in New Zealand is a different question.

    And I believe you have complete control over the gaol posts here.

    Thumb up 0

     
  316. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    goal

    Thumb up 0

     
  317. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    It’s not about the water, it’s about the question of one method proving the results of every other method.

    Thumb up 0

     
  318. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    You’re avoiding answering the question, and everyone observing this knows that you are as well.

    If a Cube 2 is right there in front of you, can it ever be anything other than a cube with a 2 written on it? NO MATTER HOW YOU EXAMINE IT, can it ever be anything other than a cube with a 2 on it if it is a cube with a 2 written on it?

    Thumb up 0

     
  319. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Let me be careful not to be insulting to my readers. I will use a line from the Xavier Charm School -

    MNP, I expected so much more from you.

    ( and you know I’m not being insulting to you when I say that. I’m mocking Xavier for not understanding the iOTW dynamic. One of the fundamental rules is that I don’t think of the dynamic as “me and then all of you.” I’m the idiot that turns off the lights at the end of the night. I do the posts, which always has reader content brought to the front row. I can’t think of any other blog that does that with regularity.
    So. it is very insulting the way these passive aggressive attacks have been framed. Maybe it’s unwittingly. I doubt it, though. He got 15/15.)

    Thumb up 0

     
  320. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    BFH,

    Please answer this (I’ve asked you about 12 times):

    Don’t you understand that the the actual element being observed or examined in every instance as per premise (b) is RADICALLY DIFFERENT in nature that the abstract, structural definition being given in (a).

    If you don’t then you don’t give a crap about (b) and thus the ACT OF EXAMINATION.

    This difference is best expressed by Magritte’s painting: this is not a pipe.

    You conflate the representation of a pipe (premise a) with the actual thing you can smoke with (b).

    Thumb up +1

     
  321. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Dagny,
    I honestly do not think what you’re bringing up is at all germane to the heart of whether question 15 is valid or invalid.

    The question is not at all hinged on A) in the question being metaphysically different, or abstract versus actual, etc. than B) in the question.

    The author doesn’t even express this as the solution to why his logic test question is invalid.

    You’re introducing levels that are not bringing clarity.

    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.

    This question’s “solution” is not at all hinged on
    the Magritte road you’re going down.

    Now, can you answer my question?

    Thumb up 0

     
  322. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    The definition of idiocy is to stick to keep running like a hamster within the same self-referential feedback loop to infinity.

    Precisely what you are doing, BFH, by negating the difference between a definition and the thing being defined.

    Because you deny this difference, you neglect the importance of the act of examination, and the inherent noise that always accompanies it.

    That noise makes it impossible to predict with certainty that the relationship between the thing being examined and the definition as per (a) will remain CONSTANT FOR ETERNITY.

    What will remain constant is the definition of (a). That you are right about; but you neglect the rest.

    Thumb up 0

     
  323. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Answer this, without lobbing in that I’m an idiot.

    If a Cube 2 is right there in front of you, can it ever be anything other than a cube with a 2 written on it? NO MATTER HOW YOU EXAMINE IT, can it ever be anything other than a cube with a 2 on it if it is a cube with a 2 written on it?

    Thumb up 0

     
  324. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    It is germane, BFH. Because the question is focused on the predictability of the act of examination:

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

    in other words, ‘we can predict that every future examination of the thing being observed (an actual element) will reveal the same chemical composition being defined in (a)

    Thumb up +1

     
  325. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    OK, excellent question, sir.

    “If a Cube 2 is right there in front of you, can it ever be anything other than a cube with a 2 written on it? NO MATTER HOW YOU EXAMINE IT, can it ever be anything other than a cube with a 2 on it if it is a cube with a 2 written on it?”

    1) a cube-2-made-in-china is in my hand, under my eyes.

    2) I examine it; and it fits with the structural definition of a cube as per a premise (a).

    3) that definition belongs to the plane of mathematics; this definition will never, ever change; it is eternal

    Question: do I keep examining this cube-2-made-china every day for the rest of my life?

    Thumb up +1

     
  326. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    If so, it is easy to predict that the cube might erode, and that my one of my descendants will have to admit that this ole cube-made-in-china no longer fits the structural defnition of a cube.

    It is somehow rounder, the angles aren’t definite anymore.

    Thumb up 0

     
  327. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    Why did you introduce things other than what was in my question? IE: Made in China? Structural definition, erosion… etc.
    That’s not how logic problems operate. You’re bringing in real world bias to a LOGIC QUESTION.

    Answer the question as I posed it. If you can’t, or won’t, I can only assume it is because you realize your argument has been lost.

    NO MATTER HOW YOU EXAMINE IT, can a cube with a 2 written on it be anything other than a cube with a 2 on it if IT IS a cube with a 2 written on it?

    Thumb up 0

     
  328. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    because you need to distinguish between the structural definition of a cube

    [that's premise a, a structural definition:

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

    and the actual THING, the actual ELEMENT, I’m holding in my hand, or under a microscope, as per premise (b):

    ” Every observation or examination by microscope has confirmed this.”

    Nobody can ever, ever examined a structural definition; in case, it is an actual thing that is being observed.

    This is where Magritte kicks in (I’m using it because I know you are an artist): THIS IS NOT A PIPE. The thing being defined as per (a) IS NOT the thing being actually examined as per (b).

    That’s why there is a relationship; and the questions is about the predictability of that very relationship — between an actual element being observed, and a structural definition BELONGING SOLELY TO THE REALM OF MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION, in the same way Magritte’s pipe belong to the real of representation, can could never, ever be smoked.

    Thumb up +1

     
  329. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    in EVERY* case, it is an actual thing that is being observed.

    Thumb up +1

     
  330. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    So, the answer is “no.”
    You can’t answer this question without a laundry list of footnotes and such -

    NO MATTER HOW YOU EXAMINE IT, can a cube with a 2 written on it be anything other than a cube with a 2 on it if IT IS a cube with a 2 written on it?

    Funny how you could answer 14 other logic problem questions without demanding to know the topographic qualities of New Zealand.

    Thumb up 0

     
  331. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    ” You’re bringing in real world bias to a LOGIC QUESTION.”

    Not ‘me’, dear BFH, but premise (b) does.

    the actual world kicks in because in every examination (future, actual or past) some REAL WORLD THING is being observed.

    A real pipe is being smoked, and it does not coincide with Magritte’s.

    Thumb up +1

     
  332. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    I’ll break it down even further.

    Is this X I just typed an X?

    Thumb up 0

     
  333. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    It’s an actualization of the virtual, eternal X.

    There is obviously a junction, but is does not coincide: the actual x will never coincide with the virtual X

    No actual X could ever ever exhaust the potential of the virtual X.

    The virtual X preceeds any particular instance of a typed or manuscripted X; it exceeds all of them actualization.

    Thumb up +1

     
  334. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    “NO MATTER HOW YOU EXAMINE IT, can a cube with a 2 written on it be anything other than a cube with a 2 on it if IT IS a cube with a 2 written on it?”

    Yes, it can. Because the actual “cube with a 2 on it” that I am observing every morning under my microscope does not coincide with the DEFINITION of a ‘cube with a 2 on it’.

    This non-coincidence opens the way for NOISE, junk, error, etc.

    Thumb up +1

     
  335. Mary Jane Anklestraps

    December 29th, 2012

    OH holy shit. Seriously???
    STILL?
    Get a room or just agree to disagree FFS.

    Thumb up +3

     
  336. BigFurHat

    December 29th, 2012

    oy.

    Jack has 3 oranges

    Mary has 4 oranges

    Therefore Mary has more oranges than Jack.

    Valid.

    Enter Dagny –
    NOOOOOOOOOOO. Jack had paintings of oranges and Mary had elemental Oranges, and one of them intersected the spatial plane of Magritte’s artist’s pallete and was not defined to it’s core essence as perceived by purple zebras.

    Seriosuly. Will you please abandon this? It is NOT what the logic question is about.
    It certainly isn’t what I am getting at with this simple simple question.

    Is this x I just typed an x ?

    Going off into existentialism, and muddying the waters with crapola, can eventually make every other question in that logic test a hot mess as well.

    This is futile.

    Thumb up +2

     
  337. Mary Jane Anklestraps

    December 29th, 2012

     
  338. Tim

    December 29th, 2012

    And I thought I wasted time on the computer!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    Thumb up +3

     
  339. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    That was cute MaryJane. Which squirrel is BigFur and which is Dagney?

    What I want to know is, are they really just fighting over who wields the biggest light saber? ;-)

    Thumb up +3

     
  340. Dagny

    December 29th, 2012

    I’m off, but not without pointing out that you are of bad faith. You NEVER played along with me ask did with you : you never entertain the possibility of a difference between the thing being examined and the definition of that thing.

    You are utterly incapable of abstract thinking, of logic, since you don’t recognize the radical difference between a structural definition and a particular instance examined on a particular occasion.

    Thumb up +1

     
  341. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    Here you go. This describes what this argument has really become.

    Bad Brad, you’re gonna love this:

    Thumb up +2

     
  342. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    You’re right, I am avoiding your question because it has nothing to do with #15.

    I’m not the who said you were being insulting.
    I have not felt insulted by you or anyone else in this blog.

    You’re right, this is absolutly the most interactive blog anywhere ever.

    I thank you for that.

    So I will answer your question even though it has absolutly nothing to do with #15.

    That specific cube with the number 2 on it will not change.

    That answer in no way proves you right about #15.

    I have not been passive aggressive.
    I am aggressive aggressive.

    It’s not about the water.

    Thumb up +1

     
  343. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Kairn, That’s hilarious. The old dude that was trying to get that thing running was acting like he’d been there before. Good music too. The Caesers are booming in my back yard during summer time.

    Thumb up +1

     
  344. Menderman

    December 29th, 2012

     
  345. Kairn

    December 29th, 2012

    @Bad Brad
    I recalled you mentioning runaway Diesel engines on a past thread. Pretty scary situation. I realized this morning that this argument/debate reminded me of a scary runaway Diesel engine. We all know it is happening, and we are all trying to stop it before it blows up and hurts everybody.

    BigFur is the engine, Dagney is the diesel. Do you hear me boys???!!!!! The rest of us are the guys desperately trying to avoid a catastrophe. Be a good engine Fur and go back to rotating in the proper direction. Please, pretty please.

    Dagney, stop injecting fuel!!!! Please, pretty please.

    Thumb up +1

     
  346. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Kairn,

    They’re fine. Dagney’s sense of logic and ability to reason is slowly being corrected. LOL.

    Thumb up +2

     
  347. Menderman

    December 29th, 2012

    All this, and not a single mention of a kazoo?

    http://www.break.com/index/girl-plays-jingle-bells-with-cleavage-kazoo

    Thumb up +1

     
  348. Premise (b)

    December 29th, 2012

    LOLOLOL, oh Brad, I genuinely laugh at that!

    Thumb up +1

     
  349. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Dagny, That’s what it all about Bro.

    Thumb up +1

     
  350. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    If a blue kazoo is in hole a, then moved to hole b
    is it still blue?

    It’s not about the water.

    Thumb up 0

     
  351. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    MNP, No, because we also switched to a different plane of reasoning.

    Thumb up +2

     
  352. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    You mean it crossed the metaphyisical taint?

    Thumb up +1

     
  353. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    More of a Mobius Transformation, to the land of Taint.

    Thumb up 0

     
  354. Jack Daniels

    December 29th, 2012

    My daughter got 12/15…..she must be the smartest 13 year old ever to live…… 

    My daughter made me write this

    Thumb up +3

     
  355. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Congratulations Jack Daniels daughter.

    Thumb up +2

     
  356. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Jack Daniels, If she answered invalid on #15 she’s a lot smarter the few un named people here. Hummm.

    Thumb up +3

     
  357. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Thank you Brad. Invalid is the correct answer.

    Thumb up +3

     
  358. Bad Brad

    December 29th, 2012

    Oops, I was distracted.

    Thumb up +2

     
  359. MNP

    December 29th, 2012

    Absolutely.

    Thumb up +1

     
  360. Premise (b)

    December 29th, 2012

    LOL

    Thumb up +2

     
  361. MNP

    December 30th, 2012

    I thought there was an E in there but I second guessed myself.

    Thumb up 0

     
  362. Jack Daniels

    December 30th, 2012

    Sorry guys,

    That info is classified…LOL

    Let’s just say the wording on a couple of questions threw her off

    Thumb up 0