Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Hardcore reasoning test
hehehhe, finally comeone could use his logic skills in after-school life:)
very nice - together with brainden forum i got 17 full surveys.
anyway, i need at least 90 - so please share the link or participate:D
for encouradgment i will draw a half year plus to one of you - all you need to do is select your sokker login as a nickname in the survey. Those who participated earlier, please enter your survey nick here, so i can include you too.
anyway, i need at least 90 - so please share the link or participate:D
for encouradgment i will draw a half year plus to one of you - all you need to do is select your sokker login as a nickname in the survey. Those who participated earlier, please enter your survey nick here, so i can include you too.
polish wersja jest juz łorking well aj hołp:)
I was Awer and I remain Awer, so I will gladly let myself be involved too.. Btw you should hope that not many children around 10 will find this topic, since it may get you a bit weird results caused by this promotion.. :)
...
the second box is logically invalid....
interesting way of putting it.
when i looked at the second one i would have agreed bears are animals.
a=b,
b=c
->c=a
considering it when you say its wrong i realise that animals is just a group within mammals and thus a group within bears, so bears includes animals but there is potentially also more thus bears arent completely..
it could be valid however, unless more parameters are thrown into the mix. when you dont know about them to me it still follows that unless more is known it is currently correct. but im not going to argue the point because i see that its not concrete
but still its a strange set of questioning. i may take this later.
im amused there has been no actual 100% english speaking country person has answered this quiz :)
(edited)
the second box is logically invalid....
interesting way of putting it.
when i looked at the second one i would have agreed bears are animals.
a=b,
b=c
->c=a
considering it when you say its wrong i realise that animals is just a group within mammals and thus a group within bears, so bears includes animals but there is potentially also more thus bears arent completely..
it could be valid however, unless more parameters are thrown into the mix. when you dont know about them to me it still follows that unless more is known it is currently correct. but im not going to argue the point because i see that its not concrete
but still its a strange set of questioning. i may take this later.
im amused there has been no actual 100% english speaking country person has answered this quiz :)
(edited)
the second box is logically invalid....
interesting way of putting it.
when i looked at the second one i would have agreed bears are animals.
a=b,
b=c
->c=a
You're wrong. All animals are bears is the logical conclusion (the right box). You're not sure if all bears are animals.
The point is that it doesn't matter what is written. It could have been 'all animals are chairs'. The point is to split logical conclusions from content (bears are animals and not the reverse).
(edited)
interesting way of putting it.
when i looked at the second one i would have agreed bears are animals.
a=b,
b=c
->c=a
You're wrong. All animals are bears is the logical conclusion (the right box). You're not sure if all bears are animals.
The point is that it doesn't matter what is written. It could have been 'all animals are chairs'. The point is to split logical conclusions from content (bears are animals and not the reverse).
(edited)
It's depended what "all" means. All "here" or all "in the world" ...
It doesn't matter. One can assume that "all" has the same meaning every time it's used.
toure absloutly right - all a are B doesnt mean all B are A.
eg all girls are humans, doesnt mean all humans are girls, right?
eg all girls are humans, doesnt mean all humans are girls, right?
Right. In terms of kenyard post, he shouldn't use equal signs, but "then" signs: "all A are B" can be written in terms of "A implies B", so
Animals => mammals
Mammals => bears
It does follow that Animals => bears. It also follows that not bear => not animal. But it does notfollow that bears => Animals
Animals => mammals
Mammals => bears
It does follow that Animals => bears. It also follows that not bear => not animal. But it does notfollow that bears => Animals
no, your wrons, bears are part of mammals, who are part of animals subset. therfore there is no such a point, when bear is not a animal, so ypou can conclude, that:
A - all bears are animals
B - no bears are not animals
A - all bears are animals
B - no bears are not animals
No, wait, you are talking about the real world now. But I was using the sentences in kenyard's right panel ;-)
Great test, if even the author doesn't know the right answers :D
I think to remember I signed "Braddock", or "Bradock", or something similar (an old nick I used for shooters). My contribution was on 2013-05-03 (the same day of my previous post).
Anyway, no problem not geeting any prize (but, just in case... ^^).
Anyway, no problem not geeting any prize (but, just in case... ^^).