Simple Logic Quiz

[Dan Emanuel]

Or there will be pictures of flowers and lighthouses opposite all four (cards, boxes, whatever)...

PureX, then if they're are flower's and lighthouse's (in the E and 7 box's), then the rule is tested, and invalidated.

...The question demands that we presume information that isn't being given. And that's where it becomes inherently illogical. It is illogical to presume information that we don't have. The logical thing to do is to accept that we are missing the information needed to validate or invalidate the rule being proposed, and either seek out the information necessary, or reject the question. Since there is no apparent way to seek out the information necessary, given this scenario, I reject the question.

Your projecting or otherwise analogizing here. Your "overthinking" it. I don't believe in overthinking, but most people do, and this is what your doing.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[PureX]

PureX, then if they're are flower's and lighthouse's (in the E and 7 box's), then the rule is tested, and invalidated.
Your projecting or otherwise analogizing here. Your "overthinking" it. I don't believe in overthinking, but most people do, and this is what your doing.


DJ

1.0
​

I'm not "over-thinking" anything. I'm simply pointing out that the information needed to test the rule is not present in ANY of the boxes. Therefor, the question is irrational, as it cannot be answered in the form that it's being asked.

Please show me how my observation is "over-thinking" it, or how it is illogical.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I'm not "over-thinking" anything. I'm simply pointing out that the information needed to test the rule is not present in ANY of the boxes...

Yes it is. The information needed to test the rule is present in the E box and in the 7 box, together, if the rule is confirmed by these box's. It is present in either 1 of them, if the rule is invalidated (like if they're are flower's and lighthouse's present).

They're is no information needed to test the rule in either the 4 box or the K box though. Regardless of what else is present in those box's, the rule cannot be tested with either of those box's.

...Therefor, the question is irrational, as it cannot be answered in the form that it's being asked. ...

It can too. If you're contention is correct, that the information needed to test the rule is not present in ANY of the box's, then you are correct, but the information is present in the E box and in the 7 box together, or in either 1 alone if the rule is invalidated.

...Please show me how my observation is "over-thinking" it, or how it is illogical.

You're logic is fine, formally. I suggested that your "overthinking" because you're critique is very valid for any real life situation that anybody try's to oversimplify to the "Simple Logic Quiz" in the O.P. They're are very simple real life situation's that might be amenable to this simple model, but most thing's, especially some very important thing's, are not modeled by anything so simple as this, though they may resemble model's more like Desert Reign's logic puzzle, provided earlier in this thread.

So in as much as you are doing this, that is why I suggested that your "overthinking" it, because the answer to this simple puzzle in the O.P. is like adding two plus two together. Its four no matter what you think, but they're are some very important thing's in real life that are not so easy to solve as two plus two, and in that vein I very much agree with you.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[annabenedetti]

The

I'm not "over-thinking" anything. I'm simply pointing out that the information needed to test the rule is not present in ANY of the boxes. Therefor, the question is irrational, as it cannot be answered in the form that it's being asked.

Please show me how my observation is "over-thinking" it, or how it is illogical.

All you have to do is show the rule is falsifiable. 7 does that.

It was so basic that I thought I couldn't possibly be right, and I was afraid to come back to the thread after I posted.

 

[patrick jane]

Why would that be?:chew:

oh, i was wrong. i was the first reply and he did change the OP slightly, (DR pointed that out) but even with the change i was wrong, i said that 60 posts ago -

 

[PureX]

Yes it is. The information needed to test the rule is present in the E box and in the 7 box, together, if the rule is confirmed by these box's. It is present in either 1 of them, if the rule is invalidated (like if they're are flower's and lighthouse's present).

But that information is not there!

They're is no information needed to test the rule in either the 4 box or the K box though. Regardless of what else is present in those box's, the rule cannot be tested with either of those box's.

But they can't disprove the rule, either, because the corresponding odd number/vowel they would need to do that isn't there.

The point is that the information needed to test the rule isn't there. It isn't anywhere. It doesn't exist.

Thus, the question is illogical.

If you're contention is correct, that the information needed to test the rule is not present in ANY of the box's, then you are correct…

The "boxes" are right in front of us. And there is no other information, there, but what we see. And what we are seeing is not enough information to validate or invalidate the proposed rule. The task being set cannot be performed using the information we're given. Thus, it's an illogical "logic puzzle".

I had a boss once who used to give us similar impossible tasks to perform, usually around the time that raises were due, so he could use the employee's failure to perform the task as an excuse to deny the raise. We all had a name for that guy, but I can't repeat it here on TOL.

:chuckle:

 

[PureX]

All you have to do is show the rule is falsifiable. 7 does that.

None of the boxes do that as they are presented to us. And none of the boxes have any information other than what we see. There is no "other figure" hiding there, that we can uncover and use to test the rule. So it doesn't matter what box we choose, we still cannot test the rule.

 

[annabenedetti]

None of the boxes do that as they are presented to us. And none of the boxes have any information other than what we see. There is no "other figure" hiding there, that we can uncover and use to test the rule. So it doesn't matter what box we choose, we still cannot test the rule.

Yes you can. :chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

"Which two boxes would you choose to test this rule?"

 

[Town Heretic]

"Which two boxes would you choose to test this rule?"

Your link isn't working. lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

Your link isn't working. lain:

I'm going to make a logical inference that the link isn't working because there's no link there. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm going to make a logical inference that the link isn't working because there's no link there. lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

:chuckle:

 

[Ktoyou]

oh, i was wrong. i was the first reply and he did change the OP slightly, (DR pointed that out) but even with the change i was wrong, i said that 60 posts ago -

You would have to validate and invalidate

I do not read through long threads

 

[PureX]

I'm going to make a logical inference that the link isn't working because there's no link there. lain:

Now you're getting it!

 

[Town Heretic]

Now you're getting it!

She's getting it? I step into a simple goof of a situation and BAM, just like that I've discovered a missing link. :first:

 

[PureX]

Yes you can. :chuckle:

If you could have, you would have. But you didn't, 'cause you can't.


___Like a

______ball …

_______bouncing …

___________down …

_______________stairs.

 

[annabenedetti]

If you could have, you would have. But you didn't, 'cause you can't.


___Like a

______ball …

_______bouncing …

___________down …

_______________stairs.

:chuckle:

 

[PureX]

:chuckle:

PureX logic ... exactly that inevitable!

 

[Desert Reign]

But the question is about testing the rule. I think you're supposing that the rule is true.

Any of the boxes can be used to "test" the rule, because any box can either prove or disprove the rule. But none of them can do so conclusively because we don't have enough information in any of the boxes.

I have already answered this. Your mistake is your faulty understanding of the word 'test'. = To attempt to prove wrong. You should read my previous replies. It isn't true that any of the boxes can be used to test the rule. Only two of them can be used to test it. You have not been asked to prove the rule. You have not been asked to disprove the rule. You read that into the problem. That is your real issue. You read the words but you heard different words.

Here is another puzzle that relies on exactly this same mental error of hearing different words to what you read.

I have two modern British coins. Together they total 30p. However, one of them isn't a 20p coin.
What are the two coins?

For the culturally uneducated: modern British coins: 1p, 2p, 5p, 10p, 20p, 50p, £1, £2. And many British people, unable to work out a solution with all modern coins, resort to older coins. In particular there was a 5 shilling piece called a crown, which would be worth 25p if it was still current. In other words, they don't listen to the plain words of the problem, which called for modern coins only.