Test your reasoning skills

[Answerman]

You would have to flip the I the T and the 5:

You would have to flip the I to see if there is anything other than a even number.
You would have to flip the T to see if there is a vowel.
You would have to flip the 5 to see if there is a vowel.

I haven't read through all of the replies yet, but this is my guess.

 

[Vytautas]

T F
I V ~V
T E ~E
8 ~V+~E V+E
5 ~V+~E V+E

V = Vowel E= Even number

Each card has an independent truth value of each other so that knowing the truth value under the assumption R is true will not give you the truth value to another card. Also the truth values have no point of intersection so that knowing one side of the card does not reveal the truth value of the other side.

 

[BrianLanier]

You would have to flip the I the T and the 5:

You would have to flip the I to see if there is anything other than a even number.
You would have to flip the T to see if there is a vowel.
You would have to flip the 5 to see if there is a vowel.

I haven't read through all of the replies yet, but this is my guess.

Almost! It is a good thing you had not read through all of the replies before answering, since that would have been cheating, vis-a-vis, the rule not to research first!!

 

[Jim Johnston]

How about this argument:

1. If it rains today, then it will not rain hard.
2. It did rain hard today.
3. Therefore, it did not rain today. (2,3, M.T.)

 

[Mushroom]

3 cards. No evidence that there is not a vowel under any of those that are not even numbers. What is under the 8 is immaterial since there is no requirement that anything else not have an even number on the reverse. My first answer was right, but for the wrong reason? I think Answerman got it right.

See? My pride wouldn't let me go to bed, and now I find I was wrong anyway. That which I will to do I do not.

 

[BrianLanier]

T F
I V ~V
T E ~E
8 ~V+~E V+E
5 ~V+~E V+E

V = Vowel E= Even number

Each card has an independent truth value of each other so that knowing the truth value under the assumption R is true will not give you the truth value to another card. Also the truth values have no point of intersection so that knowing one side of the card does not reveal the truth value of the other side.

What logical connective are you trying to respresent with '+' in the above? (I am assuming it is a truth table, but I think the spacing was distorted when you posted it.)

 

[BrianLanier]

3 cards. No evidence that there is not a vowel under any of those that are not even numbers. What is under the 8 is immaterial since there is no requirement that anything else not have an even number on the reverse. My first answer was right, but for the wrong reason? I think Answerman got it right.

See? My pride wouldn't let me go to bed, and now I find I was wrong anyway. That which I will to do I do not.

I sent you a private message. You shouldn't be so quick to doubt yourself.

 

[Mushroom]

Oops! See what a mess pride can make? Let my fall be a lesson to you all.

Thanks Brian. That was fun in spite of my portion of humble pie. I'm off to bed.

 

[BrianLanier]

How about this argument:

1. If it rains today, then it will not rain hard.
2. It did rain hard today.
3. Therefore, it did not rain today. (2,3, M.T.)

Or how about this,

1) If I go to San Francisco this summer, I will see my brother. So if I go to San Francisco this summer, and my brother moves to New Mexico before I visit, I will see my brother.

p --> q
So, (p & r) --> q

and you got to love these,

1) I am tall.
2) I am not tall.
3) So, the moon is made of green cheese.

p
~p
So, q

(ex contradictione quod libetum)

 

[Jim Johnston]

How about this argument:

1. If it rains today, then it will not rain hard.
2. It did rain hard today.
3. Therefore, it did not rain today. (2,3, M.T.)

Or how about this,

1) If I go to San Francisco this summer, I will see my brother. So if I go to San Francisco this summer, and my brother moves to New Mexico before I visit, I will see my brother.

p --> q
So, (p & r) --> q

and you got to love these,

1) I am tall.
2) I am not tall.
3) So, the moon is made of green cheese.

p
~p
So, q

(ex contradictione quod libetum)

But the problem is that we seem to be able to use (1) in my example all the time. We can imagine saying (1). Should we not make statements like (1) anymore?

 

[Answerman]

I would like to qualify my answer.

If 'I' is the Roman numeral one, you would still have to flip it to see if their is their is a vowel on the other side.

Am I right now?

 

[Jim Johnston]

'This sentence is false.'

 

[Answerman]

The barber of Seville shaves all of those and only those who do not shave themselves.

Does the barber of Seville shave himself?

 

[BrianLanier]

I would like to qualify my answer.

If 'I' is the Roman numeral one, you would still have to flip it to see if their is their is a vowel on the other side.

Am I right now?

No.

 

[Barnpreacher]

The barber of Seville shaves all of those and only those who do not shave themselves.

Does the barber of Seville shave himself?

Why am I seeing Alfalfa singing the barber of Seville in my head?

 

[Barnpreacher]

The more I sit and think about this I can also see him blowing out bubbles because he swallowed some soap before he sang. Am I crazy or does anyone else remember that episode?

 

[Mushroom]

OK, you've all heard this one, but I'll try it anyway.

There are two doors, one leads to heaven, the other to hell. In front of each door is one guard. You know that one guard always lies, and that one guard always tells the truth, but you don't know which guard is which, and you don't know which door is which. You are allowed one question only, and you can ask it of only one guard. What question might you ask that will tell you which door is the door to heaven?

 

[Mushroom]

The more I sit and think about this I can also see him blowing out bubbles because he swallowed some soap before he sang. Am I crazy or does anyone else remember that episode?

Yes.

 

[Answerman]

Oh yes, I don't watch much TV anymore unless I want to quiz myself on propaganda techniques, but I do like to watch old classic movies and TV shows. I picked up a couple of sets of Little Rascals at Costco a few years ago, and I remember that part, good stuff!

 

[Barnpreacher]

The more I sit and think about this I can also see him blowing out bubbles because he swallowed some soap before he sang. Am I crazy or does anyone else remember that episode?

Yes.

That is a vague yes, brother. Are you calling me crazy or do you remember Alfalfa singing this as well?

 

[BrianLanier]

How about this argument:

1. If it rains today, then it will not rain hard.
2. It did rain hard today.
3. Therefore, it did not rain today. (2,3, M.T.)

Or how about this,

1) If I go to San Francisco this summer, I will see my brother. So if I go to San Francisco this summer, and my brother moves to New Mexico before I visit, I will see my brother.

p --> q
So, (p & r) --> q

and you got to love these,

1) I am tall.
2) I am not tall.
3) So, the moon is made of green cheese.

p
~p
So, q

(ex contradictione quod libetum)

But the problem is that we seem to be able to use (1) in my example all the time. We can imagine saying (1). Should we not make statements like (1) anymore?

I wonder if this has to do with the content (or semantics). Just like,

This sweater is green,
So, this sweater is not red,

seems to be an inference that we make all of time, but its form is not valid (p, so ~q). The form of the argument is invalid, but because of the content or semantics of the argument, it seems to be an inference we should be willing to accept.

Or, if not, then possibly one could say that the form of your argument is a 'default' form but doesn't perserve truth in *all* instances. But just because it is not truth-perserving in *all* cases, it does not follow that we should not make statements using its form anymore--for the same reason that just because sense experience isn't always reliable, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't generally rely on it.

 

[Mushroom]

That is a vague yes, brother. Are you calling me crazy or do you remember Alfalfa singing this as well?

Only trying to be agreeable, brother (But on the serious side, yes, I do remember Alfalfa singing, with bubbles, but can't recall the song).

Does anyone remember the episode where a wild man from Borneo kept saying, "Eat 'em up, eat 'em up" over and over?

 

[Answerman]

I do, I like when Spanky kept giving him food from the refrigerator, he had a bottomless stomach.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Or how about this,

1) If I go to San Francisco this summer, I will see my brother. So if I go to San Francisco this summer, and my brother moves to New Mexico before I visit, I will see my brother.

p --> q
So, (p & r) --> q

and you got to love these,

1) I am tall.
2) I am not tall.
3) So, the moon is made of green cheese.

p
~p
So, q

(ex contradictione quod libetum)

But the problem is that we seem to be able to use (1) in my example all the time. We can imagine saying (1). Should we not make statements like (1) anymore?

I wonder if this has to do with the content (or semantics). Just like,

This sweater is green,
So, this sweater is not red,

seems to be an inference that we make all of time, but its form is not valid (p, so ~q). The form of the argument is invalid, but because of the content or semantics of the argument, it seems to be an inference we should be willing to accept.

Or, if not, then possibly one could say that the form of your argument is a 'default' form but doesn't perserve truth in *all* instances. But just because it is not truth-perserving in *all* cases, it does not follow that we should not make statements using its form anymore--for the same reason that just because sense experience isn't always reliable, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't generally rely on it.

But my argument was valid, so your first response was disanalogous. Furthermore, I'd actually say that your first argument was an enthymeme. It's invalidity is due to missing premises.

Then, do we really want to deny the universality of M.T.?

 

[Jim Johnston]

OK, you've all heard this one, but I'll try it anyway.

There are two doors, one leads to heaven, the other to hell. In front of each door is one guard. You know that one guard always lies, and that one guard always tells the truth, but you don't know which guard is which, and you don't know which door is which. You are allowed one question only, and you can ask it of only one guard. What question might you ask that will tell you which door is the door to heaven?

Ask one of them, "What will the other guard say if I asked him, 'Where does this door lead to.'"

Then, do the opposite of what he says.

 

[Barnpreacher]

I do, I like when Spanky kept giving him food from the refrigerator, he had a bottomless stomach.

It was Uncle George from Borneo. Classic episode.

I think it was Stymie that asked, "Do he eat people?"

 

[Mushroom]

Ask one of them, "What will the other guard say if I asked him, 'Where does this door lead to.'"

Then, do the opposite of what he says.

Yep

It was Uncle George from Borneo. Classic episode.

I think it was Stymie that asked, "Do he eat people?"

And yep. Lotta fun.

 

[Wannabee]

Good grief! I had to read almost this whole thread before it dawned on me. Hehe... ahem.

 

[a mere housewife]

I'm assuming that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other.

I would think you'd have to flip over the one with the vowel, and the one with the 5. The one with the 8 is irrelevant: if it has a vowel on the other side, it fits the rule: if it doesn't have a vowel it doesn't disprove it: the rule is only applicable to cards that have vowels on one side and doesn't state that a card with a consonant has a corresponding odd number. Similarly the card with the T doesn't matter as it can't prove or disprove anything about cards with vowels. But if the card with the 5 turns out to have a vowel on the other side, it has disproved the rule. But no doubt this is like those peg games at Cracker Barrel, where you're only brilliant if you manage to wind up with one.

 

[a mere housewife]

PS. If I'm not supposed to assume that the cards having a letter/number rather than a number/number or letter/letter, I don't see how you can get away with anything less than turning over all four cards....? though I realize that by Cracker Barrel peg game standards that makes me something like a dim bulb.

-edit- I realized that my PS is wrong b/c I wouldn't have to turn over the eight. If it has a vowel well and good, but if not -even if it has another numeral- it doesn't disprove the rule as stated. Did you post the answer in the thread or do you U2U it or will it be a couple days (in which case I'm going to be thinking about this in my sleep) or what?