Insider WTF
-
Okay, I concede that you may need to use some outside understanding
Chris Losinger wrote:
tell nouns from verbs from prepositions from adjectives
although I'm not entirely sure you need to know what barking means
Chris Losinger wrote:
you don't know what it means to "bark" (does it mean to make a noise like a dog, or to be a dog?).
to come to a conclusion for that question... Question 7. a) All ducks bark. b) Donald is a duck. Conclusion Therefore Donald barks. All I need to know is that all ducks do it and Donald is a duck so he must do it, whatever "it" happens to be isn't really important to the question.
"The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?" -- Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
ok ok. ducks and barking was a bad example. i guess it's the Venus/Mars one that really gets me. let me try it this way: both of the statements are nonsense, so of course you can't draw any conclusions from them. but in order to know they are nonsense, you really do have to know a bit about Men, Women, Mars, Venus, "from" and "understanding". and, yes, i understand why the answer to that one is what it is. i just think that one, and a couple of the other questions, are a touch sloppy.
-
ok ok. ducks and barking was a bad example. i guess it's the Venus/Mars one that really gets me. let me try it this way: both of the statements are nonsense, so of course you can't draw any conclusions from them. but in order to know they are nonsense, you really do have to know a bit about Men, Women, Mars, Venus, "from" and "understanding". and, yes, i understand why the answer to that one is what it is. i just think that one, and a couple of the other questions, are a touch sloppy.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i guess it's the Venus/Mars one that really gets me. let me try it this way: both of the statements are nonsense, so of course you can't draw any conclusions from them. but in order to know they are nonsense, you really do have to know a bit about Men, Women, Mars, Venus, "from" and "understanding".
I think you are over thinking it here. Question 11. a) Men are from Mars. b) Women are from Venus. Conclusion Therefore men and women will never understand each other. You don't need to know they are nonsense, you just need to know that nothing was said about understanding in the facts given, the only thing mentioned is where they are from, so therefore you can't really draw any conclusions about anything other than where they are from. Certainly not about whether they understand each other or not, and this is what makes the conclusion given invalid. IMO. :)
"The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?" -- Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
i guess it's the Venus/Mars one that really gets me. let me try it this way: both of the statements are nonsense, so of course you can't draw any conclusions from them. but in order to know they are nonsense, you really do have to know a bit about Men, Women, Mars, Venus, "from" and "understanding".
I think you are over thinking it here. Question 11. a) Men are from Mars. b) Women are from Venus. Conclusion Therefore men and women will never understand each other. You don't need to know they are nonsense, you just need to know that nothing was said about understanding in the facts given, the only thing mentioned is where they are from, so therefore you can't really draw any conclusions about anything other than where they are from. Certainly not about whether they understand each other or not, and this is what makes the conclusion given invalid. IMO. :)
"The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?" -- Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
wags77 wrote:
I think you are over thinking it here.
oh, definitely!
-
Trevortni wrote:
Please don't force me to finish that insult.
you want to insult me over this? get over yourself.
-
Trevortni wrote:
I can only assume that the inclusion of an article about logic with such a glaring flaw placed so prominently must be the result of our esteemed editors being tied up by an evil, evil monkey and forced to watch in horror as the monkey (I'm not adding monkey as a suffix to another word, so it's still okay, right?) proceeded to send the Insider with one mistake in it. I hope that was the only mistake in it, anyway! Perhaps the fact that there were so few interesting links in today's episode were another?
Tough crowd :(( What kind of items can I invent to make it more interesting? I held off on this year's Darwin Awards winner (for fear of offending folk), all the Apple news (really, $179 to replace the battery, and 30c/song I already paid you for?), and a game site (figuring you hard-working folk wouldn't appreciate the distraction).
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent it's perfect as is, you know it, I know it, millions more know it. :)
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
But I must make it perfectest!
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
But I must make it perfectest!
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey wrote:
But I must make it perfectest
Did you mean Mostest Perfect?
Henry Minute If you open a can of worms, any viable solution *MUST* involve a larger can.
-
wags77 wrote:
I think you are over thinking it here.
oh, definitely!
:laugh:
"The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?" -- Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
-
Did anybody else notice, in the Logic Test[^] linked to in the Insider, that the person who wrote the answers to the test[^] used the wrong logical visualiations? In the explanations for the first two answers, the Venn diagram was used (without any any indication of what was and was not a valid zone, mind you), when clearly what was intended was to show that
do ⊆ d ⊆ q
and
female logicians ⊆ clear thinkers
AND
lawyers ⊆ clear thinkersIn each case, Euler diagrams should have been used, showing the subsets wholly contained inside the supersets, as shown in the Wikipedia entry on Venn diagrams[^]. Venn (and Euler) diagrams are supposed to make the visualization of logic easier, but this article does nothing to aid in said visualization - in fact adding to the confusion, especially in the first question, where the Venn diagram clearly shows cases of Donald not quacking, and only the (completely unexplained) presence of a red X shows us that there is some significance to the intersection of all three. Which significance is unexplained in the diagram, and passed over in the commentary. I can only assume that the inclusion of an article about logic with such a glaring flaw placed so prominently must be the result of our esteemed editors being tied up by an evil, evil monkey and forced to watch in horror as the monkey (I'm not adding monkey as a suffix to another word, so it's still okay, right?) proceeded to send the Insider with one mistake in it. I hope that was the only mistake in it, anyway! Perhaps the fact that there were so few interesting links in today's episode were another? I hope everyone else scored 100% on the test, like I did, though. :cool:
Yeah, 100%, but I don't like their explanation of 15... 0) In my opinion, statement b is unnecessary. 1) Even though water is H2O, some future observation or examination may use mis-calibrated equipment or user error. 2) Their explanation about some other water-like compound doesn't apply.