Author Topic: arm-chair logic test (Read 6370 times)

Luigison · « **on:** January 27, 2008, 10:43:35 PM »

A fun little logic test:

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

Give it a try and find out how logical are you. I got 100%.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:19:44 AM »

BP · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:41:59 AM »

a) If a person misses one, he gets 93%
b) I got 93%

Therefore, I missed one.

Valid? Invalid?

Kuromatsu · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2008, 10:30:30 AM »

73%

I feel stupid now, but some of those questions didn't make any sense!

Fifth · « **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:19:37 PM »

Nah, they were all perfectly logical.

I got all but one correct. The last one.

Suffix · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:59:15 PM »

Hey! I got 100%!

But keep in mind that I look Philosophy 201 last semester ("Improving Your Logic"), and I'm taking Discrete Math this semester (logic applied to math). So, I was pretty prepared.

Koopaslaya · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2008, 03:48:59 PM »

Quote from: Metal_Slug_Mario on January 28, 2008, 10:30:30 AM

... some of those questions didn't make any sense!

They all made perfect sense if you understand what validity is.

DO NOT read the below contents before you take this quiz.
When something didn't make sense, you were finding unsound arguments. Logical validity depends on the strength of the logic, not the nature of the statements. I can say Paris is in New Zealand and I am in Paris, therefore I am in New Zealand and it will be valid. this argument, however, is based on false premises and is this unsound, not invalid.

I scored a 100%, but I am also a big Philosophy guy, so that was expected.

goodie · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2008, 04:47:11 PM »

I got 80%

MaxVance · « **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:41:51 PM »

83%. The two I missed were 13 (the one about Mary and the murdered man) and 15 (observation of the water molecule). However, I believe question 15 is flawed. The conclusion states:

Quote

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

Clearly it is asking about the water molecule itself, not necessarily any other substance.

Koopaslaya · « **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2008, 06:01:08 PM »

Yes, Max, but the problem lies in a substance that might have the same properties as water, but a different chemical composition. Imagine, if you will, a glass of water with the chemical composition H-O-H. We could observe every atom in that glass. Nothing about that, however, would guarantee that the next glass of something with the same properties as water to have the same chemical composition. It would not be deductive reasoning. We could use induction to be pretty sure this is true, but we cannot know that there is not a substance like the one described. I know it seems a little far-fetched, but it does make sense.

Fifth · « **Reply #10 on:** January 28, 2008, 06:12:06 PM »

However, the facts stated in the test don't indicate anything about the properties of water beyond "Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom." The answer goes on to say how there could exist a substance with all the similar properties of water that has a different molecular composition, but none of that is actually stated in the facts presented in the question; instead, we're just referring to water, as defined by its molecular composition.

I'm not so convinced by that last question.

Insane Steve · « **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2008, 06:18:16 PM »

93%, I apparantly missed #10 but I highly disagree with it because There may be a city called Paris that isn't in New Zealand.

PaperLuigi · « **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2008, 06:50:49 PM »

Arr, I scored an 87%.

bobman37 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2008, 08:12:20 PM »

93%. I missed number 12, about the murder. For the one about the water molecule, my logical thinking process was well, since it's been consistent in the past, doesn't mean it can somehow change in the future. Maybe my thought process was wrong, but at least I got the right answer.

DeadAwake · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2008, 10:20:12 PM »

Yay, 100%.

Bird Person: Invalid.

BP · « **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2008, 07:05:50 PM »

Very good! I didn't think anyone would answer me.. heh.

The one I missed was the last one.

Kuromatsu · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:41:00 PM »

Wait a second... Bird Person's Question was Invalid?

BP · « **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2008, 09:00:13 PM »

It's true, but not valid.

Koopaslaya · « **Reply #18 on:** January 29, 2008, 09:02:56 PM »

Yep.

Quote from: Bird Person on January 28, 2008, 12:41:59 AM

a) If a person misses one, he gets 93%
b) I got 93%

Therefore, I missed one.

Valid? Invalid?

If His first condition said Iff (if and only if), then it would be valid. Also, his first statement could have read: "If a person gets a 93%, then he missed one," then it would be valid. Written as it is, however, only said that if you missed one, you get a 93%, and does not take into account other possibilities of wrong answers. It does not take into account other possible ways to achieve a 93%, which it needed to in order to fulfill the first statement.

megamush · « **Reply #19 on:** February 04, 2008, 04:45:54 PM »

I hot an 60% every time, I took it 3 times