Logic Quiz

[christiefan915]

I don't know why it won't show the questions. Click on reply with quote and you'll see them.

[apple0154]

Here is a fun little quiz, I got 9 out of 10.

http://www.allfunandgames.ca/brain/l...thinking.shtml

Premise: I received 7/10 on the first test and 8/10 on the second test.

Conclusion: Lumosity has already increased my brain power.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Nope, I pasted both on a notepad and looked at them word for word. Try it and see what you get.

damn you're right.

[apple0154]

Nope, I pasted both on a notepad and looked at them word for word. Try it and see what you get.

Test 1

Test 2

I suppose that's why the web site is named "all fun and games". They're messing with people's heads.

Kudos for spotting the "irregularity", Christie. Did you contact the site and let them know they're messing with the wrong gal?

[Mott the Hoople]

I've been tempted to take the LSAT. I know sever MD's who decided to earn a JD as well and they told me that by no means is it easy but it's still a walk n the woods compared to the MCAT exam.

[tinfoil]

On the drug question we are to use the two logical statements to determine. One they get better, the other is opposite. How is it false? Only one i missed

[Auster]

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.

.

I guess I should explain, Tom I totally stole the link and reposted it.

[Mott the Hoople]

On the drug question we are to use the two logical statements to determine. One they get better, the other is opposite. How is it false? Only one i missed

See my response to Grind. The answer was a logical fallacy.

[tinfoil]

ouch! I fell for it. I thought it was a trick question. I first thought correlation does not equal causation, but then I thought that was too obvious and they were tricking me. I assumed I was to use ONLY the statements to determine and thuis I felt they may want me to check true. LOL I'm a dumbass. I talked myself outa that one

[Mott the Hoople]

ouch! I fell for it. I thought it was a trick question. I first thought correlation does not equal causation, but then I thought that was too obvious and they were tricking me. I assumed I was to use ONLY the statements to determine and thuis I felt they may want me to check true. LOL I'm a dumbass. I talked myself outa that one

I used to do that when I was an undergrad in exams. I learned not to do that when I was studying for the MCAT. First instincts are almost always right. That served me well in grad school when taking an exam. If you weren't absolutely sure about an answer.....go with your strongest feeling.