Who is right /pol/?
>>81123886
It is not necessary that all tall doctors are men
>>81123886
Obviously, all of the tall doctors could be women so, logically, it does not follow that some men are tall.
what about women doctors?
of course, no attention is given to them
OOOOH BOYS CLUB OOOOOH GURLS CAN'T BE DOCTORS, MISS NURSE, PLEASE BLOW ME UNDER THE DESK XD
fucking pigs
>>81123886
The negro.
She is injecting other factors into an equation that does not account for them.
How is she wrong?
>>81123886
She is not the nigger!
Some is a quantifying term,more than one but not all is,some.
If some men are doctors and some doctors are tall than the logical over lap is that some men are tall.
Because of the doctor camp there is an over lap of men who are tall and men who are doctors.
Christ niggers are arrogantly dumb
>>81123886
some is unspecific.
answer is yes unless we assume that every tall doctor is a women, but that's unlikely.
>>81124444
This. She's an engineer, logic is nice and everything but in the end reality and observation trumps logic. Some men are tall.
Manlets irreversibly BTFO
>>81124444
Consider 10 people.
5 manlets, 2 of which are doctors
and 5 tall women, 2 of which are doctors.
>>81124444
There is no logical connection between the some doctors that are men and the some doctors that are tall
>>81124583
Not necessarily. Which is the point.
>>81124444
think in a venn diagram, we know there's overlap between male circle and doctor circle and there's overlap between doctor and tall circles but that doesn't imply an overlap between male and tall circles
>>81124837
what are you talking about
Of course some men are tall, but in the context of the logic problem, the answer is no.
SOME men are doctors. SOME doctors are tall. Not all of the tall doctors are necessarily men.
In the fucked-up alternate reality of this logical problem, it is entirely possible that ALL men are manlets, and some of those manlets are doctors, but all of the tall doctors could be female. Picture it with a Venn diagram and it makes sense.
>>81124444
some men are doctors
some doctors have vaginas
does it follow that some men have vaginas?
But I know for a fact some doctors are tall. This is stupid.
>>81124837
So then the question can't be answered with a yes or no, surely?
>>81124444
In the context of the question, it is not a given that any of the tall doctors are also men. It is likely to be, but it's not certain.
Though obviously in the real world outside of logic puzzles some men are tall.
The question is likely designed to weed out those that do and do not know formal logic.
>>81124583
The balance of probability was not part of the question.
In fact, the question is intentionally vague. The true answer to this questions is simple:
>There is not enough information or data available to make a determination.
It would be ignorant to answer either yes or no to a question where the information needed to make such a determination is not present. They are both wrong.
>>81123886
of course some doctors are tall what of it.
the some doctors that are tall arent necessarily any of the men who are doctors
>>81124922
No, that is wrong. The answer is yes.
You dont consider 1 million chances, the only qualifiers you are given in this problem is some, and that this exists in both camps. Logically there is an overlap, if you take a random population tall and male doctors and the wave function collapse happens to reveal there are no tall male doctors the answer would still be yes, because the wave function never collapses and some tall male doctors exists in the realm of possibility. You people are fucking stupid.
Some men are doctors,
all tall doctors are female
Thus some doctors will never learn
>>81125158
No, because the question is "does it follow". It is asking if there is a logical necessity for some men to be tall based on the two premises.
The question itself is flawed and can't be answered with yes or no.
>>81124444
If some jerps are clarps, and some clarps are rambly, does that mean that some jerps are rambly?
>>81124704
>medical engineer
She could be very well working for $20k a year, a fancy way of saying "medical technician" working in the piss lab. Or she did get a token womyn job for $75k
She's right, though
>>81125104
Some sure act like they do
>>81125320
you sincerely don't understand how logic works do you
>>81125320
>people say no because it's not necessarily true
>LOL UR DUM CUZ IT CUD B TRUE!!1!
neat
>>81125090
>In the fucked-up alternate reality of this logical problem
the question primarily asks about your view. there is no right or wrong in here.
assume 1000 people, 500 are tall, 250 tall men, 100 doctors, 50 male.
chance is small that no male person is tall.
>>81124725
this would be another view. small sample size, assuming that only manlets running around.
>>81124306
/thread
>>81123886
There is not necessarily an intersection between the tall doctors set and the men who are doctors set. Within the unrealistic confines of this question of course.
>>81125158
It can be. The answer is no because it is not certain.
To rephrase it: Can we be sure that from this given information that X is true? If it is not certain then the answer is no.
I hope she comes on here and posts her reply.
"Faggy manlet BTFO"
But seriously. There is, although not guaranteed, potential that some men are tall.
So logically from an engineering perspective it makes sense to design things under the assumption that some men could be tall.
If some forests have predators and some predators attack people, it doesn't logically follow that all forests have predator attacks, but you'd be a retard to wander into any forest without your bear mace.
>>81123886
The answer is maybe
>>81123886
>literally a retarded crow paradox
>>81125216
but the question wasn't "are some men tall?", it was "does it Follow that some men are tall?", it was a question of whether it's posible to reach that conclusion on those premises so the answer is NO
Possibly, but not necessarily, some men are tall
Women have higher mean IQ but lower density in the top end. There is a man and a woman answering the question, thus it follows that the man is right and the woman is wrong.
>>81125643
Yeah, I get it now, I'm one of the suckers that assumes all doctors are male lol.
>>81123886
The question is not flawed and the answer is 100% NO
This is a simple LSAT-style logic question. The answer is not we do not know, or there isn't enough information or etc. The answer is NO. The question is asking whether it can be logically inferred whether some men are tall - it can not.
I've probably answered 500+ questions identical to this.
why tf is pol so dumb
>>81124704
>but in the end reality and observation trumps logic.
Right, great, but the question was: "Does it follow".
>>81125788
>The answer is no because it is not certain
That's equally wrong as saying yes though
>>81125647
>So logically from an engineering perspective it makes sense to design things under the assumption that some men could be tall.
That's not how it works. Anthropometrics is an entire field dedicated to making things that will fit the widest group of people. Outliers get things custom made.
>>81123886
You can't prove that some men are tall with those two.
>>81124444
Let's put it in terms you can understand. If some Jews are gassed, and some of the people who get gassed are incinerated, does that mean some Jews get incinerated?
I made a thing.
>>81125876
It isn't because of what is being asked.
It is asking whether we can be sure of this information. We can't, so the answer is no.
>>81125978
nice, that's the best way to explain it. When completing logic games it's always best to diagram.
>>81125837
I get it now. The language is confusing.
Got some more examples?
This is a question in some textbooks on logic, and in that case the answer is no - it does not follow. But that is only when using predicate logic (existence quantifiers etc.). In this case, it's just a simple question, so one would assume that statistical likelyhood trumps pure logic.
>>81125513
No, it isn't about your personal view, and it isn't about chance.
The question is a formal logic problem asking if claim C follows from assumptions A and B, which it does not.
>>81125216
does it FOLLOW that some doctors are tall
its asking if you can be certain some doctors are tall from the information given, which you cannot
If "terrorist win if they are killed" and "ISIS has nothing to do with islam" does it follow that "Islam is terrorism"?
She's right.
>>81125978
>>81126062
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
>>81125068
Some doctors are tall doesn't necessarily mean that some MALE doctors are tall. For all you know it could be just females. You can't make a logical connection based only on the two.
>>81125978
and this is why you will never be with the infantry schlomo.
keep being an intel cuck
>>81123886
>Woman from Commiefornia
>On a dating site
Any guy should close the browser and run. Just run away. And keep running
>>81126062
Fair, maybe I'm being unnecessarily harsh.
Logical Reasoning and Logic Games can be fun and are a good way to train your brain. If you want more, here is a free practice LSAT test. It's meant to be completed timed but you can just do problems for fun.
http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf
Section 2 and 3 contain questions most similar to the one in the OP.
If jim and tim are manlet doctors, Barbara is a tall doctor, and Carl is a janitor
Then some men are doctors and some doctors are tall. If we could infer "yes, there are some tall men" from the two assumtions, then we'd get a contradiction with our example
That's how those questions work. "Does it hold for each scenario?" No it doesn't. QFT
Why haven't you guys find her company yet? The world should know it's heroes.
>>81124444
She isn't.
Some men are tall.
The question tricks autists into thinking too much.
>>81126201
Can you prove those two circles overlap.
I can prove mine:
>some men are doctor
left overlap
>some doctors are tall
right overlap
>>81126198
I thought it through some more and no, you're actually correct. Fuck.
>>81126300
I actually was an artilery half-cuck.
Daily Reminder that KC shill are lurking here.
Bringing KC Threads to pol.
>>81125980
true true
No. Perhaps all the tall doctors are female.
>>81126342
fucking this /thread
you autists can't into logic and its got me on tilt
>>81126342
Again you can't prove that your circles necessarily overlap like this
>>81126443
>>81126414
Exactly, it can be inferred from the real world, to where autists does not go. It's an implied truth thus she is actually right.
>>81126201
>All doctors are tall
Ok shekelstein
>>81125497
You sincerely do not.
There are 3 premises
Some meaning more than one but not all
Some men are drs
Some doctors are tall
Does it logically follow that some doctors are tall men?
Instead you choose to affirm the negative i.e all women doctors are tall, a premise not stated in the originally nor one to logically assume as you are given that some conditionality.
So the answer is yes.
Derp derp
>>81124704
>Argentina cannot into logic
>>81126304
Yet look at how much of /pol/ didn't know the answer either.
>>81126702
>>81126681
Oh Woops, you are right. The Swedecuck is wrong.
>>81126665
Where in the question does it state that tall and men overlap?
It is possible (though unlikely) that all the male doctors are short.
>>81123886
Who cares? As long as she didn't get BLACKED, I'm happy.
>>81126201
This makes the error of assuming the male doctors and the tall doctors overlap, when nothing in the logic problem suggests that they do. There are "some" male doctors and "some" tall doctors, but you could have, for example, 3 short male lawyers, 1 short male doctor, 2 short female doctors, and 1 tall female doctor, a set that meets all criteria of the problem but in which 0 men are tall. When the question asks if it "follows," the answer has to be logically true for each possible outcome.
>>81125978
This is the correct way to diagram it.
>>81126721
is it possible for a solution set to contain tall women doctors and short male doctors only, yes, ergo it does not logically follow that you are guaranteed a solution set that has some tall male doctors.
Jesus fuck man how are you this dumb
>>81126828
The diagram assumes all doctors are tall
>>81126825
> she didn't get BLACKED
You think so?
>>81126700
Just change "men" to "aliens from Nebula 5" or some other thing that we have no data on, and do it again.
>>81123886
>Mechanical Engineer, for fuck's sake
Daddy paid for her degree, she had a boyfriend do her homework
Daddy pulled strings to get her hired
"Works" by taking phone calls and photocopies
>I am a strong, independent, self-made female mechanical engineer
>>81125978
men can't be tall, nope.jpg
>>81126997
Yeah, you're right, he didn't even include all the sets in the diagram.
So that's two ways in which it is illogical.
>>81126062
Here is another easy question.
Economist: Every business strives to increase its productivity, for this increases profits for the
owners and the likelihood that the business will
survive. But not all efforts to increase
productivity are beneficial to the business as a
whole. Often, attempts to increase productivity
decrease the number of employees, which clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses
the main conclusion of the economist’s argument?
(A) If an action taken to secure the survival of a
business fails to enhance the welfare of the
business’s employees, that action cannot be
good for the business as a whole.
(B) Some measures taken by a business to increase
productivity fail to be beneficial to the business
as a whole.
(C) Only if the employees of a business are also its
owners will the interests of the employees and
owners coincide, enabling measures that will
be beneficial to the business as a whole.
(D) There is no business that does not make efforts
to increase its productivity.
(E) Decreasing the number of employees in a
business undermines the sense of security of retained employees.
>>81126978
How are you not getting it?
The wave function never collapses so your answer is wrong. Just because its a possible 1/10000000 condition doesnt mean its wrong. The question is one of logic not absolutism, it does not say will a some doctors always be tall men. It asks if given the following premises can you logically assume x conclusion.
Yes
Too fucking dumb
>>81124164
Especially if they are Indian men
>>81123886
p(m)=p(f)=1/2; male/female (fuck off tumblr)
p(d)>0; there exist docs
p(t)>0; there exist tall people
The entire question is about male docs, docs that are tall and implication that some men are tall. no other info given.
p(m)*p(d)*p(t) = p(x); where p(x) is the prob. of a tall, male, doc.
implying that some men that are doctors, are tall. therefore the statement some men are tall, within the realm of giving information, is true.
They are testing to see if you understand transitive relations, in her case, she prob related it to the 0th law of thermo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
>>81127063
Tall is a self-referential comparison between the same object type, so it would probably follow anyway.
>>81127103
You're retarded.
>>81123886
But she s right. It's basic proposition logic
Some A is B
Some B is C
therefore, Some A is C
My philosophy is a little rusty, but i think this is right.
>>81126665
>complains that others can't into logic
>literally failed at answering this basic logic questions
>half these answers in this thread
is this modern education? Or do people truly do not understand logic?
shit question, it doesn't say if women doctors exist or not, it gives room to the possibility of "all doctors are men but not all men are doctors"
if the answer is "no" then this question only works in the Western Culture and I find that really racist desu
>>81127289
I demonstratively showed a solution test that did not fit the logical premise that the question is asking you to affirm, ergo because of the 1/x condition, it means it's wrong
TOO FUCKING DUMB
>>81127459
The answer is no.
I literally get paid money to tutor people on the LSAT.
>>81126414
Nah man. It could be a small group of doctors that are tall.
If it was "all doctors are tall" then the statement "some men are tall" would be correct. Otherwise it isn't correct.
>>81125104
this explains it beautifully
>>81127459
Some A is B
Some B is C
Therefore it is not certain that some A are C, because not *all* A are B.
>>81126721
Your problem is you're ignoring what is actually being asked, i.e. Can it be logically inferred based upon that information. To which the answer is NO
>>81127289
The question isn't about chance. For it to "logically follow," the conclusion has to be true for every possible set of data given the previous assumptions.
Cut the crap - some men are tall.
>>81124164
some are shit... on the streets
you fucking shit in streets
>>81124444
Let's turn it upside down.
Postulates
A. Some men are doctors
B. Some doctors are tall
Conclusion
C. Some men are tall
So far so good. The question is, does the Conclusion (statement C) follow from the Postulates (statements A, B). If that were the case, then we would have a relationship like
If A and B, then C. Or you could say that (A and B) implies C. C would be true whenever A and B are true.
Now, let's make another postulate that completely contradicts the conclusion.
D. All men are short.
If D holds true, then C cannot possibly be true. They directly contradict one another.
If D, then Not C. Or: If C then Not D.
But what about the relationship between D and A, B? Because D directly contradicts C, it would have to directly contradict at least one of the Postulates that imply C, that is, A, B.
Now let's finally substitute the words back in and examine D versus A, B.
D: All men are short. A: Some men are doctors (no relationship)
D: All men are short. B: Some doctors are tall (no relationship)
So it is clear that C's inverse has no relationship to A, B. It should be equally clear that this sequence of A and B has no relationship to the conclusion C.
>>81127459
"is" is not a transitive relation
>>81127459
the proposition is
Some A contains B
Some B contains C
Will A always contain C
>>81127682
Obviously some are, but the question is not testing knowledge, it's testing logic.
>>81125104
This explains it really well by substituting the words for something less subjective.
Think of it as A, B, and C, not "men," "doctors," or "tall."
>>81123886
Why would you assume that an ENGINEER is knowledgable about philosophy?
That's like asking a mathematician some obscure historical question and laughing when they don't know the answer
>>81125978
Thank you for having sense.
Sure an overlap is possible, but not stated.
Thus your diagram is correct until more observation has occurred.
Israel really is home to the chosen people.
Save us goyim, we know not what we do.
>>81127667
No it doesn't moron. It just has to be reasonably inferable. It doesnt matter what words were used if the doctors were not men or women but millions of different alien species
Because the only premises you are given in the problem imply conditionality then that is the case.
If you think anything else deep throat a shot gun. Why are niggers so obstinate in their stupidity ?
>>81127682
This has been my answer for quite some time.
>>81127758
>Will A always contain C
shouldn't it be:
>Will some A contain C
?
>>81127917
>philosophy
/pol/ everyone
>>81128066
yes it does do you understand how solution sets work?
>>81126978
There is no solution set other than ALL DOCTORS and ALL MEN, of which SOME OF THE MEN are doctors and SOME OF THE DOCTORS are tall.
The only way to logically answer no is if you conclude that all doctors are tall females. You have no evidence for this conclusion, so this conclusion is shit. So the answer is "Yes, it does follow that some men are tall. It's certainly possible yup yup yup!"
>>81123886
Maybe she just pressed the wrong button? Is this some formal shit where the answers are important or something?
>>81127912
Not really, because even if they get the right answer they are still arriving at it in the wrong way: "Of course men don't have vaginas silly" as opposed to "Of course some men are tall silly".
this is exactly like war between man and maggots , or dragons and wolves , or men riding dragons throwing wolves at maggots
>>81123886
She's wrong.
The latter clause - some doctors are tall - does not differentiate into the bases of the first clause, hence we cannot make an attributive link across them. There either has to be a distinct attribution in the second clause, or the subject of the second clause has to be a subset of the first clause, for example:
Some shapes are squares.
Some squares are blue.
Some shapes are blue.
This is fine, and valid, on the other hand:
All squares are shapes.
Some shapes are blue.
Some squares are blue.
Is incorrect, as shapes is a superset of squares, not the other way around.
>>81128195
no, for the logical premise to work SOME men HAVE TO BE TALL therefore A always has to contain C for it to logically follow
>>81127459
>philosophy
Shut up, Barbosa
>>81128241
The topic of logic and arguments falls under the umbrella term of philosophy.
If you were to take a class at university about this topic, it would categorized as a "philosophy" class.
>>81127912
this is correct
P(x) -> Q(x)
Q(x) -> R(x)
Then P(x) am-> R(x) by hypothetical syllogism
>>81123886
Let me put this so /pol/ understands.
Some niggers have jobs, and some people with jobs are hard working. Does this mean that some niggers are hard working?
>>81127917
>Why would you assume that an ENGINEER is knowledgable about philosophy?
logic is in the curriculum, but the question is pretty sneaky, because some men are tall
>>81124444
she answered accordingly.
the nigger right about the whole logic of the question.
but who ask a nigger his opinion ?
>>81127758
Where is it stated that all of B is contained in A?
Same for how do you figure C resides inside of B?
By your logic, 'some' means 'all'
>>81128066
>a logical conclusion has to be reasonably inferable
murrica
>>81123886
logically, the answer to this question is no, statistically the answer is yes.
Isn't this question statistically biased anyways?
>>81123886
What kind of retarded logic test phrases it "does it follow"?
>>81128435
>The topic of logic and arguments falls under the umbrella term of philosophy.
/pol/ everyone
>>81127459
Ah, so this is the intelligence of nationalists.
>>81127710
This is wrong because you are adding a clause outside of what the problem states. You do not ignore the premises on the basis of your own bias, had the problem said some men are green you wouldnt say well im not green so thats wrong. You use the rules of the problem to understand the world.
>>81123886
Black shades guy is right
>>81128474
"SOME B CONTAINS C"
HOW DO YOU FIGURE OUT C RESIDES INSIDE OF B, BECAUSE IT'S IS A PRESUPPOSITION TO THE LOGICAL ARGUMENT YOU MORON THEY LITERALLY TELL YOU SOME MEN ARE TALL AND SOME DOCTORS ARE TALL FUCKKKK
>>81128241
It is philosophy. Stop shitposting Chile, also gtfo of sweden you commiefucks
Sorry >>81128474 was for >>81127459
Who's the dumb now?
<----This guy
>>81123886
If some fruits are red, and some red things are vegetables, does it follow that some fruits are vegetables?
If some chairs are steel, and some steel are pipes, does it follow that some chairs are pipes?
If some OPs are anon, and some anon are faggots, does it follow that OP is a faggot?
Wait, scratch that last one
>>81128463
I would assume that it depends on the curriculum. She obviously has not been taught about logic and arguments if she made this mistake, as it is clearly formatted as a logic question rather than a common sense question.
If she had seen and learned about this type of problem before, she would have recognized it.
What I find interesting is that a thread so obsessed with the intricacies of logic is somehow unable to realize that not being knowledgable in one particular area does not make someone unintellegent. The image itself is ironic
>>81128066
Exactly! If it doesn't matter what words are used, you're only proving yourself incorrect.
Some As are Bs, and some Bs are Cs. Does it follow that some As are Cs? No, it doesn't, because the Bs that are also As are not necessarily the same as the Bs that are Cs.
Here is a grand list of every time you have been proven wrong in this thread:
>>81124306
>>81124725
>>81125040
>>81125090
>>81125104
>>81125162
>>81125295
>>81125337
>>81125643
>>81125837
>>81125978
>>81125980
>>81126140
>>81126289
>>81126349
>>81126828
>>81126978
>>81127063
>>81127663
>>81127664
>>81127667
>>81127710
>>81127881
>>81127912
Yet you continue to call everyone a nigger.
You are a retard.
>>81127917
> philosophy
It's logical thinking. Stop getting your information from comic books
>>81125978
>>81126828
This is not totally valid. The question is if it's GIVEN that the men are tall, given some doctors are tall. Some of the male doctors could be tall, but it's NOT given, so no is the correct answer.
>>81128660
Are you retarded?
>>81128907
The word sum or all are related to the universe of discourse
The upside A or the Ex
>>81128861
fruit =/= vegetable
man == doctor
there ya go.
>>81128751
Lets move on to something else
>>81128241
Trump supporters can't think logically. Who would've thought?
>>81124444
>the country of poets and thinkers
NO
I am starting to do this using natural deduction calculus
Fucking existential elimination, this might be a bit long
>>81129096
what is this pleb shit
E
>>81128914
Yes, logical thinking falls under the catagory of philosophical thought, atleast in American curriculum.
I didn't get this information from comic books, I took a philosophy class at duke that briefly covered this topic.
>>81128324
> Some men are doctors
Let's say 30%
> Some doctors are tall
Could be men and women, doesn't matter, just doctors in general.
Let's say 40-50%
> Some men are tall
Now the numbers are made up, but that's not the point. Even if the percentage is minuscule there will still be some Male doctors who are tall.
It doesn't say all, or most, just some.
> No, she is wrong, it doesn't specify.
It's not supposed to, it's a simple logic question.
> Some glubs are swolls
> all swolls are tradues
> does it follow that some glubs are tradues
>>81128907
You keep failing to realize the wave function never collapses. So your look at this one example where all women are tall is simply wrong.
>>81123886
The black man
>>81123886
Ok so logically it doesn't follow that some men are tall but that's a stupid question because it assumes the possibility that all women doctors could be tall which is absurd.
>>81129271
No bully pls
A lot of people here don't seem to understand validity.
When asking "does it follow", they're asking is the conclusion true BY NECESSITY from the premises. The premises leave open the possibility that some doctors are NOT men, and thus any tall doctors there may be may fall into the category of non-men doctors. Therefore, we cannot conclude absolutely that some men are tall from information given.
If the premises said:
Some men are doctors
All doctors are men
Some doctors are tall
Then yes, it would follow that some men are tall
>>81129338
it's not a common sense question its a logical question and you came to the right conclusion
>>81125509
It is very likely true. It is incredibly improbable to say "this is certainly false" which is what you are doing when you answer "no" to the question "does it follow"
>>81129281
I studied for an Islamic theology degree (kek, laugh all you want), and we had a logic course, and it was under philosophy as well
I remember existential elimination being really annoying cause you had to use an arbitrary name
Saving this thread for any time anyone tries to claim /pol/ is smart. Wow guys.
And don't even think of trying to pretend you were trolling.
>>81129024
That's the point, anon
Just because it's true doesn't mean that it "logically follows"
If some insects are green, and some green things are plants, does it follow that some insects are plants?
It's the same logic as posed in the OP. The conclusion might not be wrong, but the logic is.
All you need is a counterexample that satisfies the assumptions but not the conclusion, then it's proved that the conclusion does not follow from the assumptions:
There are two doctors. Doctor A is a short man. Doctor B is a tall woman. Let's check.
Assumption 1: Some men are doctors: check---there's a man who is a doctor.
Assumption 2: Some doctors are tall: check---there's a female doctor who is tall.
Conclusion: Some men are tall: Nope, the only man in this example is a short man.
Assumptions check out but conclusion doesn't follow. That's all there is to it.
>reminder that there was a thread yesterday talking about how /pol/ was filled with geniuses
>>81129228
underrated
>>81128907
I love you ameribro.
You took the time to do that.
Good stuff!
>>81129096
Thank God.
2c = r
2r = t
2(2c)=t
4c= t
therefore
E
>>81129096
E
Scale needs to be balanced, 2 circles = 1 square, 2 squares = 1 triangle therefore 1 triangle = 4 circles.
>>81123886
No. Theoretically all tall doctors could be female.
>tfw you are a fairly intelligent and good person
>tfw you are not an SJW
>tfw some Mudshit kills you in a foreign country
>tfw some Autists on a Taiwanese Basket Weaving board digs up some stupid shit you said or did online and makes a thread about it.
>>81123886
I don't like the way the question is worded.
>Does it follow that some men are tall?
Well it depends. It is very likely that some men are tall but what are you asking? If you're asking for certainty then no, there is no 100% certainty that some men are tall but I don't know what "does it follow" is asking me for specifically.
>>81129665
It is illogical to assume that, because it is incredibly unlikely
>>81125104
In Germanistan they do
>>81129308
That's a misunderstanding - you've conflated logical conditions with distributed statistics:
A continuous distribution of all doctors are men.
From the set of doctors, there is a continuous distribution of height, from which some satisfy the condition 'tall'.
In the limiting condition, we may infer that the set of men have a distribution of height, in which some satisfy the condition 'tall'.
Note in particular that we're discussing continuous distributions of a continuous variable here. That's equally important to make the above argument. And that we're taking the limiting case, in anything but the limiting case the last statement is not guaranteed - in fact we can't even guarantee that we have a continuous distribution of a continuous variable as an output.
>mfw brainlets
>>81129390
Is it B? A?
>>81129776
how?
>>81129589
>>81129522
>>81129228
Pretty sure it's wrong at this point, so natural deduction isn't going to cut it (to prove something wrong), so I'm moving onto semantic tableux, and will show an open branch
>>81128066
It's funny how absolutely wrong you are in relation to how steadfast you are in the belief that you are correct.
>>81129646
You saying that it was a scale made it make a lot more sense...
>>81129390
I think D
>>81128869
they probably had it,but you forget shit like this, especially when you get a question that's meant to trick you
>>81129985
Is it because B has the shape coming out in two places?
>>81129390
I'd go B.
How do I rule out A though?
Fuck I might be stupid.
>>81123886
Definitely not the woman.
>>81129543
my point in my comment was this; an insect can NEVER be a plant, a fruit can NEVER be a vegetable. but, a man CAN be a doctor. the idea behind the logic in this case is absurd. Of course its true that there are not necessarily any tall male doctors. But while logical, that thinking is not practical. Statistically, it is likely, if not assured, that there will eventually be a tall male doctor. The logic might check out, but you cannot apply it, and really it has no real world applications other than to warn people 'don't assume things'
Squart.
>>81129880
>i continue to fail to understand what a wave function collapse is and instead because i made this one possible scenario where I am right I am right.
Arrogant nigger
>>81130109
Yeah my brain just wants to believe the shape order goes in a circle but its not.
>>81129747
People who haven't studied logic get tripped up because they really just don't know the "rules of the game" so to speak. "Does it follow" is asking for validity. Validity just means that the conclusion MUST be true if the premises are true. Here, if we assume the two premises are true, it is still possible that the conclusion is false, and therefore the argument is invalid.
>>81127226
You got that from an LSAT from the US, right? I remember reading that exact question
>>81129308
>Could be men and women, doesn't matter, just doctors in general.
MUH NON BINARY GENDERS YOU FUCKING SHITLORD REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>81129390
no fucking idea on this one.
We need superior chink brains
>>81130102
I think B because an intersection of the previous is moved to the next. And then the sequence of next intersecting shape should probably be a box. IDK
>>81130109
>>81130275
>>81130102
>>81129390
??
what is the answer
and what is ur iq
and show ur work
>>81129833
A
B breaks the rules by having an object cut into three, not two.
>>81129320
>If I keep saying the term "wave function collapse," /pol/ will think I'm smart!
Stop switching gears. Your shitty point was that "it doesn't matter what words are used," which destroys your whole argument.
If some men are doctors, and some doctors are tall, does it follow that some men are tall?
=
If some As are Bs, and some Bs are Cs, does it follow that some As are Cs?
=
If some dildos are made of plastic, and some things made of plastic are outdoor kiddie pools, does it follow that some dildos are outdoor kiddie pools?
>>81129390
A, good Juden post answers? also post more? been a while since i actually had to think like this
>>81129833
I started explaining but then I realized it's wrong :^)
>skim thread
>burgers are fucking STUMPED by this elementary school tier logic problem
>nigger countries explain the solution to them in simple words and they KEEP FIGHTING IT
My sides can't take this anymore
A is the answers goys now lets move on.
>>81129390
B.
The pattern seems to be that the base shape is the previous overlapping shape, but sliced as it is by the previous base shape. This is most obvious in the third picture.
It is B and not A because the triangle has already been used.
>>81130275
Same. Returning to triangle again would make me feel comfy, but so far we have seen no repeating shapes, thus I'm tempted to say B. Yet B introduces a new rule due to the new shape extending outside of the old shape in two places.
Maybe A is right....
>>81130632
WELL DONE BONG WELL DONE
>>81129390
Ok, long answer.
Sequence is: smaller object has one part inside and one part outside of larger object.
Discard what is outside, take what is inside and enlarge.
Repeat.
B does not meet this criterion because the smaller object is not in two sections, but three.
It's threads like these that routinely show how fucking stupid you pol posters are.
If I worked for the CIA and needed to manipulate discourse on pol to prevent the American youth from taking the shit posted here too seriously, I wouldn't post slide threads about coalburners in cheerio commercials or crybaby speeches at bigger music awards, I'd post threads proposing two step equation word problems. That way, instead of wasting their time shitposting about niggers and raging in their apartments when they could be functioning like a thin tank, they'd be squabbling over basic fucking logic, thereby actively revealing their own fucking stupidity.
>>81130880
Why doesn't D work?
>>81130803
HOWEVER
>>81130349
It's from the 2007 June test. You have probably taken it as a practice. It was the first practice I took.
I swear the tests from the 2000s are way easier than the tests 2013-NOW
>>81130587
>goys
Anon you shame your heritage.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/goy
Goyim is correct.
Ok folks, >>81129522 here, I'm going to derive this probably using semantic tableux
I do believe this was the statement we are trying to prove correct or incorrect right?
If it's wrong, I'll try to specify an open branch
We are going to solve this shit using some actual logic here, (though it's a bit hairy I did this shit years ago in uni, in an Arab country)
>>81130893
No, you're dumb!
>>81127459
Some dogs are yellow. Some yellow objects are submarines. Therefore, some dogs are submarines.
>>81130632
Actually, could be D, as there is rotation present in the examples (fourth one).
It would make more sense actually as none of the previous ones overlap more than one side and the oval hasn't been used yet either.
So yeah, D.
>>81130466
In order for the answer to be no there is only 1 possibility. Only women doctors compose of the "tall doctor group", for the answer to be yes there is an infinite number is combinations of subsets.
Now this isn't actually happening we are not testing a population, so there is never a truth at the end. Instead we are given oo vs 1 situation where "no" holds true.
So then to say if some doctors are male and some doctors are tall then some doctors are tall males is A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. the answer is yes.
>>81130893
>mfw
>>81123886
Some men are doctors, but not all of them, therefore she's wrong.
>>81130587
I was looking for a sequential relationship between the squares, and then I realized that maybe there isn't one. D is the only choice that follows the same criteria as the other squares
>>81125104
>does it follow that some men have vaginas?
Anon...
>>81129390
C D and E don't fit the pattern of the next shape in the picture being the large one. As anything outside the larger shape gets cut off B looks the shorter of the arrows but I'm not sure if that's an optical illusion.
>>81131072
It isn't the same shape. All of the others in the sequence have retained their orientation, whereas D would require you to flip the arrow.
>>81123886
The one saying "no is right" some/some/some patterns imply that overlap is possible but it is not necessary for overlap to occur for the pattern to hold.
Source: 177 on my LSAT bitches
>>81131196
Shit that's a small image.
∃(x: Mx) Dx , ∃(x: Dx) Tx ⊢ ∃(x: Mx) Tx
This is the statement, if it isn't obvious, Mx = men, Dx = doctors, Tx = tall people
Were trying to prove that there exists a person x who is a man, who is also tall
>>81123886
No.
But at first I thought the answer was yes. Am I confirmed for low IQ : (?
>>81130587
E, clearly.
>>81124164
>>81124306
Inductive logic, not reductive.
Some men are very likely tall, so yes
>>81130587
C, though that doesn't quite sit right. Fuck that nigger circle.
>>81131402
Nice, where are you going to law school?
>>81125104
Being tall is a quality men are capable of having. Having a vagina is not a quality men are capable of having.
>>81130587
fuck man i don't understand the shading rule but B
>>81130587
E, purely on the fact that all other answers seem to contain errors. A and D are touching the circle at multiple points B overlaps it and C isn't even a circle.
>>81131196
>idiots on here struggling with basic logic
>this fag wants to start posting using mathematical and logical notation
>thinks this will clear things up
>>81123886
Strictly speaking, she's wrong. There's fundamentally no reason the tall doctors have to be male. Of course in reality men are taller than women, and the majority of doctors are male, so if you're just using your intuition you'd probably say "yes."
She's wrong but she's being reasonable.
>>81131402
Congrats brother. I got a 170. Enjoy the free tuition. I know I did
>>81123886
>not taking an intro to logic 101 class in college
it's literally one of the easiest classes to get an A in and you learn to answer these questions easily
>>81124583
just a burger being a burger. goddammit.
The answer is "no." Nothing in the statement suggests that the tall doctors are male. in this question, all of the tall doctors COULD be female. That's obviously not true in reality, but whatever, that's what the statement prescribes.
Fucking burgers can't into logic, only neanderthalic slurs and insult
