Logic Test - i don't get it

Chronictank said:
My post seems to have been lost in the woodwork so reposting
Click to expand...
2) While the answer I'd expect is Correct, there is a case there no x exist, in which case no z are x.

7) As you've stated the question the answer is Correct, obviously disagreeing, are you sure you've copied it correctly?

8) The answer is Correct, some of Y are not Z, the fact that all of Y are not Z is irrelevant, you are only being asked whether some are, All is a subset of some.
 
Original questions:
2. a. All Canadians are right handed.
b. All right handed are opticians.

Conclusion is: Some opticians are Canadian.

Canadians = x
Right handed = y
Opticians = z

so
a. All of x are y
b. All of y are z
conclusion: Some z are x
---------------------------------------------
7. a. None of the chemists is an athlete.
b. All managers are athletes.

conclusion is: Some athletes are managers

Chemists = x
Athlete = y
Manager = z

so
a. None of x is y
b. All of z are y
Conclusion: Some of y are z
---------------------------------------------
8. a. None of the bee keepers is a cook.
b. All Dutch are bee keepers.

Conclusion is: Some cooks are not Dutch.

Bee keepers = x
Cook = y
Dutch = z

so
a. None of x is y
b. all of z are x
Conclusion: Some of y are not z
 
Last edited:
Al Vallario why are you using external knowledge and bias to answer the questions? How can you not see that this defeats the whole purpose of the test?
 
Al Vallario said:
By "inconclusive" what you meant to say is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In other words, the conclusion is not supported by the premises of the argument.
Click to expand...
No I do not, I mean it is not possible to conclude whether the conclusion follows from the premises or it does not, that is what inconclusive means.
In a simple restricted question of logic it is a reasonably frequent and valid response, you'll note it is actually given as a response in one of the questions you yourself linked/quoted...

You seem insistent that you are some genius when it comes to these kind of questions, despite being glaringly wrong, and pretty much everyone else in the threads disagreement with what you are saying.
 
bam0 said:
Al Vallario is actually right, the syllogism in the OP is AEO-3, an invalid type.
Click to expand...
How, without adding in the assumption that a racing track is a route of transportation?

I do understand what he's saying but my general experience of these kind of questions is that they require you to use only the knowledge explicitly stated, the relative truth of that knowledge is irrelevant, and could be used to throw you off the correct answer.

Whether it is a valid syllogism or not is irrelevant in saying whether the premises provided lead to the provided conclusion, is it not? You only care whether it does, doesn't or you can't tell.
 
Abraham said:
How, without adding in the assumption that a racing track is a route of transportation?

I do understand what he's saying but my general experience of these kind of questions is that they require you to use only the knowledge explicitly stated, the relative truth of that knowledge is irrelevant, and could be used to throw you off the correct answer.

Whether it is a valid syllogism or not is irrelevant in saying whether the premises provided lead to the provided conclusion, is it not? You only care whether it does, doesn't or you can't tell.
Click to expand...

Maybe I shouldn't have said he was right, as I don't agree with his arguments, the conclusion presented is simply incorrect as the syllogism is invalid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom