Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iceblaster]

http://www.allfunandgames.ca/brain/logicalthinking.shtml

Logic test.

I got 9/10.  Last question I got wrong.

8/10

Didn't check which ones I got wrong sadly.

[Graknorke]

9/10
The one I got wrong was me assuming correlation=causation. Like the silly goose that I am.

[Putnam]

9/10

I guess "either you are in philadelphia or new york" is given as true

[Graknorke]

So I was looking on Youtube and on the recommended videos was one called "Super horse mating with female donkey". What the fuck is a "super horse"?

[Putnam]

super-girl's pet

[Imp]

Premises:
Whenever Drug Y is administered, the patient gets better.
Whenever Drug Y is not administered, the patient does not get better.

Conclusion:
Drug Y causes the patient to get better.   

Supposed correct answer:
False.

I believe it is true. The test is claiming I'm using a correlation = causation fallacy, but I'm not given the wording of the premises. If we assume the premises are 100% true, then in no situation can the patient get better without taking the drug. And in every situation the drug is taken, the patient gets better. This means without a doubt that the drug causes them to get better, even if it's indirectly so as a catalyst for something else.

Inductive reasoning, bitches. It works.

I hope I can explain why with 'logic' and the specific wording, the answer should be false.

Keep in mind, with logic you look purely at the sentence structure and definitions given, without any added information.  That added information is something of a cognative bias - remember that in logic puzzles such as this, you can replace the details with anything, and if you're doing it right, you'll still have the same answers.

In this case, the details are 'drug Y is/is not administered' and 'the patient gets better/does not get better'.

Whenever A, B.
Whenever not A, not B.
A causes B. - this is false.

Here's a few (hopefully more) clear examples of why this logic does not follow -

Whenever someone wakes up, they want to relieve their bladder.
Whenever someone doesn't wake up, they don't want to relieve their bladder.
Waking up causes someone to want to relieve their bladder.  (Sleeping, someone wants to stay asleep.  A full bladder may wake a person, but the bladder did not fill because someone woke up)

Whenever a Catholic is given last rites, the person dies soon from an expected cause.
Whenever a Catholic is not given last rites, the person does not die soon from an expected cause.
Giving a Catholic last rights causes the person to die soon from an expected cause. (Last rites, if given, are a reaction to the observed process of dying.  This process is independent of the last rights, and withholding them when they would be given cannot save a life, nor will giving them to a person not about to die cause their death)

Using A as giving a drug or not and B as getting better or not is especially entrapping in this form of logic test - humans DEEPLY believe in the power of drugs to cure... to the point of making placebos work.

[Graknorke]

super-girl's pet

Superheroes with super-strength must have to avoid having sexual relations. Ever.
Superhorses too I guess. In fact, especially super-horses.

[MadMalkavian]

So I was looking on Youtube and on the recommended videos was one called "Super horse mating with female donkey". What the fuck is a "super horse"?

The better question is why do you have horse mating videos on your Youtube recommendations list?

[Graknorke]

So I was looking on Youtube and on the recommended videos was one called "Super horse mating with female donkey". What the fuck is a "super horse"?

The better question is why do you have horse mating videos on your Youtube recommendations list?

I can only shrug. It was a recommendation from a WeeblsStuff video if that counts for anything.

[pisskop]

Probably the same reason I have some 'Annoying Orange' series on my recommendation list.  Because Youtube hates us.

[MadMalkavian]

So I was looking on Youtube and on the recommended videos was one called "Super horse mating with female donkey". What the fuck is a "super horse"?

The better question is why do you have horse mating videos on your Youtube recommendations list?

I can only shrug. It was a recommendation from a WeeblsStuff video if that counts for anything.

Was it the one about someone's horse being amazing and tasting like raisins? That one is pretty catchy.

Probably the same reason I have some 'Annoying Orange' series on my recommendation list.  Because Youtube hates us.

I don't get anything like that at all. In fact all of the recommendations I get are related to video games, Let's Plays, and on some occasions the news. It's kind of nice.

[Flying Dice]

If you get Pewdiepie recommends (and you almost certainly do), YT hates you. 

[pisskop]

Other

If you get Pewdiepie recommends (and you almost certainly do), YT hates you. 

Other forums have a 'thank you' feature.  This post proves we need one.

[Vorthon]

super-girl's pet

Superheroes with super-strength must have to avoid having sexual relations. Ever.
Superhorses too I guess. In fact, especially super-horses.

Heh. Reminds me of 'Man of steel, woman of Kleenex'. Yes, there's a whole essay on the subject. :v

[Iceblaster]

If you get Pewdiepie recommends (and you almost certainly do), YT hates you. 

Eeeeeh he's a bit of a mix of guilty pleasure and my pseudo sadism.

Sooooo I don't mind those recommends, it's rant videos that have no justification.

WTF for today: Contemplating if I should hook my bro up with an account here so he can find interesting games/get feedback on games that have threads here without him having to bug me. Figure the WTF thing out for yourselves