tis made me a better arguer
tis made me a better arguer
Nice, stumbled the answer page
But Sherlock, surely Mary would have a chance to present her case, and the body inspected for gloves.
100%.. how reassuring. =P This was mainly a test to see if you knew what a valid argument was in comparison to a sound one.
My problem (like most) is with question 15. First of all, the first premise is a) Water IS a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. By then stating that water is not necessarily composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, it breaks its own rules. Surely this is not logical? By its own premise, if something had a different chemical composition then it wouldn't be water. Whatever philosophy says is irrelevant, you cannot state a premise in a logic puzzle and then contradict it. This is an absolute fundamental of logic.
The reason I got the question wrong wasn't because of the above, but because of the "we can predict" part. Like Rand-al-Dragon below, I reasoned that I CAN predict whatever I like. Whether or not that prediction is correct is also irrelevant. I CAN predict Scotland will win the next World Cup. I CAN predict that a jellyfish-horse hybrid race will take over the planet. I may be wrong but I can still predict it. If it said "Therefore every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition" instead of "Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition" then I'd have got 100% (though I would have still had issues with the question).
Question 15 is more of a philosophical question; as a logic question, it is deeply flawed. On the other hand, by including a controversial question, it has generated a logic debate; you could argue that if the purpose of the site is to make you think about logic then I suppose in this respect the question is a good one
Agree with rand. Otherwise, rather straight-forward.
Here is a simple explanation for why question 15 is, in fact, illogical:
The language in the question is very clear and says that this prediction can be made in EVERY future examination, which is clearly false. We may not presently possess all of the relevant knowledge to justify an inflexible statement that this event will remain constant for all time. Previous examination of an observable event does not preclude that the event could not differ in the future. If the molecular structure of water changed, then water as we understand it today may cease to exist. However since we are observing water, the new water is still water.
I got 13/15. One I got wrong because I mistook "should" eat a horse for "could" eat a horse. The second was the water thing... I still dont completely understand that.
100%! These aren't trick questions, as some reviewers have stated...
I know some people who wouldn't do too well on this...
I had fun.
there were some that I knew were trick questions however I chose to pick the wrong one anyway.
Too easy. Only useful to help people understand the difference between strict logic and 'common sense'.
Number 12 is a bad example because it only serves to alienate people who get it wrong, causing them to think that logic has little use if it can't even pin the case on the woman.