So you think you're logical?

[spaced]

So you think you're logical? (http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/logic_task.htm)

Doing the moral parsimony test reminded me of all the tests there are on the TPM site. I figured that us INTPs are supposedly a logical bunch, so this might be a fun one. Enjoy! B)

[spaced]

Hrm... just realized this isn't really a psychological test (as the subtitle of this forum indicates). Then again, the moral parsimony one wasn't really one either, so, whatever. Anyway, mods, feel free to move this if you don't think it belongs here.

[nobarcode]

I tried this test last night and came to the logical conclusion that I'm not all that logical while under the infuence. :cheers:

(I only got one correct)

[SensEye]

I must protest.

If you get the question "Biking after Dark" (the questions are somewhat random), it is flawed.

You are determine if a rule regarding biking in the dark without reflective clothing has been broken. The cards tell a persons transportation method on one side and clothing worn on the other.

The test result tells you that the card showing "riding a bike" must be flipped over to determine the clothing worn to see if you can determine if the rule has been broken. However, this provides insufficient information. If a person bicycles only during the day with non-reflective clothing no rule has been broken. So simply knowing a person rides a bike in non-reflective clothing is not sufficient for you to conclude the rule has been broken.

Since the instructions are to turn over only those cards which will allow you to form a definitive conclusion about a rule violation, this card should not be turned over as you will still not be able to tell with 100% certainty.

It told me I was wrong to not flip this card over. Bah! :angry:

These folks should try paying a little more attention to detail. If they stated in the question prologue that the card showed the persons transportation method after dark no problem. But they don't. I double checked.

[Vagabond]

I disagree with the choices of wrong questions. I can reasonably justify my answers.

(See, I am not the one lacking logic... the test is... :D )

[BritainOphira]

I managed to get them all right, but then again I also used the "if I were the person who wrote these questions, what answer would I want" line of reasoning, which actually seems to work pretty well under most circumstances.

[Jezebel]

I must protest.

If you get the question "Biking after Dark" (the questions are somewhat random), it is flawed.

You are determine if a rule regarding biking in the dark without reflective clothing has been broken. The cards tell a persons transportation method on one side and clothing worn on the other.

The test result tells you that the card showing "riding a bike" must be flipped over to determine the clothing worn to see if you can determine if the rule has been broken. However, this provides insufficient information. If a person bicycles only during the day with non-reflective clothing no rule has been broken. So simply knowing a person rides a bike in non-reflective clothing is not sufficient for you to conclude the rule has been broken.

Since the instructions are to turn over only those cards which will allow you to form a definitive conclusion about a rule violation, this card should not be turned over as you will still not be able to tell with 100% certainty.

It told me I was wrong to not flip this card over. Bah! :angry:

These folks should try paying a little more attention to detail. If they stated in the question prologue that the card showed the persons transportation method after dark no problem. But they don't. I double checked.

With that logic, it could be argued that NO boxes need to be checked. It also wouldn't matter if a person was wearing dark clothing if they were only riding their bike in the daytime.

[jittus rye]

Jezebel, I believe that was his point, but when taking tests made by mere mortals, it is best not to read too heavily into details. You would think anyone that knows how to read would get the questions right as long as they didn't reason with it too hard. (Biking question).

I think it is just another one of the flaws of the English language. Not that I know any other languages, but words and ideas are often assumed in English.

Is their a difference between logic and common sense?

[MacGuffin]

I got all 4 correct. Though I had a hard time convincing myself I was the moron that wrote the rule that "cookies = messy room". If you happen to get that question you will see what I mean.

[ohnoaninfp]

I got 3 out of four questions right. It is a weird test though.

[Jezebel]

Jezebel, I believe that was his point, but when taking tests made by mere mortals, it is best not to read too heavily into details.

I mostly agree, the only problem is after coming into contact with too many tests that have trick questions that do rely on you not looking at the details, it can make one suspicious when it is just human error.

[SensEye]

Yes that was my point. :)

But as you say, these questions seemed so easy I was thinking there must be a catch. I guess not, but I would still argue my point with the question writers. What can I say? It's my nature.

[antireconciler]

I must protest.

If you get the question "Biking after Dark" (the questions are somewhat random), it is flawed.

You are determine if a rule regarding biking in the dark without reflective clothing has been broken. The cards tell a persons transportation method on one side and clothing worn on the other.

The test result tells you that the card showing "riding a bike" must be flipped over to determine the clothing worn to see if you can determine if the rule has been broken. However, this provides insufficient information. If a person bicycles only during the day with non-reflective clothing no rule has been broken. So simply knowing a person rides a bike in non-reflective clothing is not sufficient for you to conclude the rule has been broken.

Since the instructions are to turn over only those cards which will allow you to form a definitive conclusion about a rule violation, this card should not be turned over as you will still not be able to tell with 100% certainty.

It told me I was wrong to not flip this card over. Bah! :angry:

These folks should try paying a little more attention to detail. If they stated in the question prologue that the card showed the persons transportation method after dark no problem. But they don't. I double checked.

I had the exact same issue. I guess I shouldn't be suprized that it's already been pointed out. I got the others right. Interesting test.

[paladinoflunaria]

The whole point was to educate the person taking the test on the relationship of a proposition, its converse, its inverse, and its contrapositive. If the proposition is true, then the contrapositive must be true.

[Hope]

Is their a difference between logic and common sense?

Yes. Common sense can explain the behavior of people. Logic does not.

[paladinoflunaria]

Elaborate on that.

[antireconciler]

Yes. Common sense can explain the behavior of people. Logic does not.

Doesn't it? Humans act pretty logically, even if the causes of thier behaviors are not always appearant. Even very emotional people act in pretty logical, predictable ways once you understand the "initial conditions", say, for lack of better words.

[Odyssey]

Oops, though S means there's a 3, I assumed that 3 meant there had to be an S X_X Sneaky if-then statements.

~Odyssey

[Miss Padfoot]

I've seen these types of things before, so I was able to answer them all correctly with ease. I tried to read into the questions a lot at first, but then was able to convince myself that it was just a simple logic test.

[Crazy]

I've never done a test like that before, but I got them all right. I didn't get the biking in the dark question. I did get the S then 3 question. It doesn't say that all 3's have S's, only that all S's have 3's

[cuspuser]

Oops, though S means there's a 3, I assumed that 3 meant there had to be an S X_X Sneaky if-then statements.

~Odyssey

Yeah, i got this one too, answered it right and then changed my answers which included what would be a natural missing premise (the one i quoted from you) there's a reason why only 11% of people got that one right because the question is retarded :D

Rule: IF Circle on one side, THEN Yellow on the other ... tho most people will read the question with a necessary relation between the two that is a card with a circle on one side MUST have yellow on the other, and vice versa. That is it is read with bi-implication ... and it is why people get the context question right around 50-60% of the time, instead of 11-20 percent of the non-contexted questions ... because people are less likely to put in "hidden premises" :zzz:

[Dunearhp]

I think that the biking in the dark question has a cheating context, even though they have put it in the standard group of questions. If you look at the results, it is the only question in the first group that most people got right.

I think that it uses "cheating" conditionals in a similar manner to the Sly Beer Drinking problem. It doesn't matter that they are not as social in nature. The human mind still picks up on them.

In the problem of riding after dark there exists a real life context that assists with understanding the relationship between reflective clothing and riding a bicycle. In the circles and squares problem there is no real life context to help out understanding because the relationship between shape and colour is purely arbitrary.

[jimkopelli]

Aced it.

[Vicideus]

4/4... and in the spirit of pointing out peculiarities, wouldn't "after dark" be referring to something during the day-time? Granted, it is a common enough idiom, but in a test about logicality you would think they would be more precise.

[candela]

I got all 4 right. Took me a while to figure out what exactly they were asking in the first question though.

[harris]

Three out of four here. For a moment there I was afraid that I'd flunk the test. Hehe.

[SheepDog]

I got them all correct. I'm amazed at how low the precentage correct are on many of them.

Percentage Correct
Qu1: Biking in the Dark 54%
Qu2: Coloured Circles and Square 12%
Qu3: Travelling in the City 20%
Qu4: Mind your S's and Q's 10%
Qu 5: Filing Mr Smith 32%
Qu 6: Even Vowels 16%
Combined Scores 24%

With cheating:
Percentage Correct
Qu1: Pension Troubles 62%
Qu2: Sly Beer Drinking 76%
Qu3: Munching Cassava 58%
Qu4: Tidy Rooms 53%
Qu5: Dancing with Mushrooms 51%
Qu6: Surfing at Work 67%
Combined Scores 61%

[PenguinHunter]

all right here too,

16% right on question 3 is pretty shocking.

[Dempsey]

Got 'even vowels' and 'tidy rooms' wrong. Both by not ticking an extra box, so I wasn't too disappointed.

[Architectonic]

I did all the questions (not just the four) and got them all right.

However, I found the test is broken - if you tick the '<---Please tick here if you have seen a test like this before.' box, it doesn't give you another question (at least with this version of firebird) and marks the question incorrect.

Therefore I would suggest that those percentages are obviously skewed.

[moni]

wow... that was pretty easy.
got 4 out of 4 :)

[Shadow]

The test was fairly easy (4/4). At least on the four questions I was given, the logic was always the same:

rule(cond1) == cond2

You simply need to test that all cond1's map to cond2 and that all auxilliary states that are not cond2 did not come from cond1 as rule(cond1) always is equal to cond2. In that respect, all of the questions I had were exactly the same.

To me, this is a test of reading accuracy and attention, as the logic part is simple.

[ApeTheDog]

Got the last one wrong - it was the one with the yellow and circles. I ignored that you had to check the red card, to see if it might have a circle on it. Stupid.

[MasterMerk]

I shamefully admit that I got them all wrong.

Either I read the questions back to front... or I'm just a silly F'er.

[Samantha543]

I got Even Vowels wrong... didn't think about the 7. I got Filing Mr. Smith, Sly Beer Drinking, and Surfing at Work correct. I thought the test was generally pretty easy, but you have to be paying attention. :whistle:

[Amaris]

I was given Biking in the Dark, Travelling in the City, Even Vowels, and Sly Beer Drinking. Got them all right. "Sly Beer Drinking" makes me smile.

[Zero Angel]

3/4 correct. The 'mind your S's and Q's scenario' had a 90% incorrect rate, got it right. The beer question was the one that got me though.

[kali]

4

heads up - they have other tests here (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/) too

[Martavious]

3/4, did not show me percentages. Disappointed at not seeing percentages.

[xNTP]

FOAR

[YHWH]

Yup, 4/4. The only one that needed a little attention was the yellow/circle one.

[CreativeChaos]

Ehh...3/4. The one I missed was the yellow/circle one. I knew it was trying to trick me, but...damn! The cheating types don't have that tricky logic, do they? A one way if, then...? If you eat a cookie...then you have a tidy room. Ate cookie, messy room...that one goes both ways.

If the card has a circle then the other side is yellow...not both ways.

Only persons over 21 can drink. So...check...beer, age 19...that's a really simple logic one.

The other was the filing one. R-Z must go in file D. S's being misfiled. So check the S name, and check the A file. This one was more tricky though. Yeah, I figured out the tricky part...not all files in file D must be R-Z, but again it's an if...then...one way.

Were all the other "cheating" one's so logicaly simple? I don't even care to figure it out. I'm disgusted. Stupid test. :angry:

[kali]

Oh, it's randomised and has different questions every time... I was wondering why people kept talking about cookies.

More NFs should post their score.

[Grrr]

3/4 (curse the Latin alphabet!)
Frankly, these are the easiest questions on logic I've ever been asked.

[Shoot!]

4/4.

[Swordguy]

3/4

The simplicity of the questions confused me, so I thought I was doing it wrong. I didn't pay close enough attention to the wording on the last one and got it wrong. (The one about London and cars)

I'm intrigued by the idea that our brains haven't evolved to make certain types of logical links.

I'm more intrigued by the fact that I thought I was doing the test wrong because it was so easy. And that line of thought led me to rush the last question and answer incorrectly. It's probably a side effect of assuming internet questions are trick questions. But I hope I don't get easy problems wrong in real life from assuming they are harder than they actually are.

[last_caress]

hmmm I kinda don't agree with the yellow card/circle answer.

[earwax]

4/4. Took it a second time, got different questions and got 4/4.

Pretty basic IF AND logic.

[1104]

i didn't click red on the yellow/circle one.

[md5fungi]

4/4. lame.

[!diom]

4/4. lame.

Ditto. Ditto.

[teleforce]

Ditto. Ditto.
http://i32.tinypic.com/2vss03r.jpghttp://i32.tinypic.com/2vss03r.jpg

[md5fungi]

img

Simply amazing.

[BrownBear]

The test is not logical. It's moronically simple, but still not logical. The second half of the questions highlight this: "If condition A is true, then condition B is true." never stating that if "Condition B is true then condition A is true." and yet, the correct answers to the second half of the questions assume the second statement. Blah

[YHWH]

You're supposed to logically deduce that part.

[BrownBear]

You're supposed to logically deduce that part.

There was no reason to make that deduction.

[earwax]

There was no reason to make that deduction.
So can we assume that you got them wrong? I hope you're not a programmer. :gm:

[last_caress]

this one
Imagine that you have been employed by a board games manufacturer to ensure that the cards in one of their games have been correctly produced.

The rule governing the production of the cards states that if a card has a circle on one side, then it has the colour yellow on the other.

There are four such cards below. You know for certain that each card has a shape on one side and a colour on the other. In light of this knowledge, please indicate, by ticking the appropriate box(es), which card or cards you definitely need to turn over, and only that or those cards, in order to determine whether the rule is broken in the case of any of these four cards.


Card 1 Card 2 Card 3 Card 4
Square Circle Yellow Red

the correct answer according to the test, is:
circle and yellow, but the other cards could also be in violation of the rule (square card could have yellow on the other side, and red could have a circle) and not turning them over would be neglecting to "determine whether the rule is broken in the case of any of these four cards."

[earwax]

I did not get that question, but that answer is wrong.

All you need to check is the circle and the red.

Circle must have yellow on the other side, and red better not have a circle on the other side.

It does NOT say that yellow must have a circle on the other side - only that circle must have yellow.

[Chunes]

I'll be honest. The first question doesn't even make sense to me, and I don't care to exert enough concentration to understand it.

*shrug*

[last_caress]

I did not get that question, but that answer is wrong.

All you need to check is the circle and the red.

Circle must have yellow on the other side, and red better not have a circle on the other side.

It does NOT say that yellow must have a circle on the other side - only that circle must have yellow.

I could have a faulty memory of what the test said was the correct answer there.
anyway it's not sinking in for me why the rule wouldn't imply that yellow/circle is an exclusive relationship that works both ways, since the card with the square could have yellow on the other side and thus be in a rule violating state.

[YHWH]

There was no reason to make that deduction.

Well, not if you fail to logically deduce it there isn't.

[!diom]

anyway it's not sinking in for me why the rule wouldn't imply that yellow/circle is an exclusive relationship that works both ways, since the card with the square could have yellow on the other side and thus be in a rule violating state.

p__q__(p -> q)
T__T_____T
T__F_____F
F__T_____T
F__F_____T

where p = circle on one side, q = yellow on the other, and p -> q = if p, then q

as you can see, the rule is only violated when p->q is false (duh). since you know that p is false right away (meaning p->q must be true), you don't need to flip the card

----------

This is only confusing to some people because it's abstracted from any kind well-known situation. For instance, take the rule "if you flip the switch, then the lights will be on", it's clear to most people that the rule isn't violated if you don't flip the switch. However, it may be less clear to people that the rule also isn't violated if the lights are on but the switch was never flipped: the rule simply states the switch has to work if you choose to use it, there could be a button somewhere else.

[earwax]

I could have a faulty memory of what the test said was the correct answer there.
anyway it's not sinking in for me why the rule wouldn't imply that yellow/circle is an exclusive relationship that works both ways, since the card with the square could have yellow on the other side and thus be in a rule violating state.
Do you agree that everyone who lives in Texas also lives in the US, but not everyone who lives in the US is in Texas?

[Laughing Ebony]

The test is not logical. It's moronically simple, but still not logical. The second half of the questions highlight this: "If condition A is true, then condition B is true." never stating that if "Condition B is true then condition A is true." and yet, the correct answers to the second half of the questions assume the second statement. Blah

They most certainly do not assume that B-->A. Getting the first card in each set is easy; you need turn over A and make sure that B is also true, which would verify that the rule A-->B is being followed. For the second one, you need to make sure that ~B-->~A, which is logically equivalent to A-->B. Assuming that B-->A, therefore, is not necessary to get both cards right. I was going to construct a truth table, but it seems as though someone else got to it first.


p__q__(p -> q)
T__T_____T
T__F_____F
F__T_____T
F__F_____T

Elaborating on the truth table a bit, notice that the only possible condition in which the rule p-->q is violated is one in which p is true, but q is false. The goal is to catch all the instances in which the rule is violated. Thus, it is necessary to flip the card in instances in which p is true, to determine whether q is false (which would violate the rule) and in instances in which q is false, to determine whether p is true (which would also violate the rule).