I got 100% (and so, I hope, should you)
I knew that a few were somewhat fishy, but I couldn't tell why.<br />
Amy
i only got the last one wrong, tho i had the feeling i was being tricked.
martin
<p>Got one wrong and can see how they deemed it to be wrong, but I'm not totally sure they're completely correct. It was the Paris/New Zealand one - which they say is Valid, but this is only true under the additional, unstated assumption that there is only one Paris. I did ponder for a while before deciding to go with Invalid on that one, so wasn't really surprised that the quiz called it differently. </p><p>I'm not sure whether similar nit-picking could be applied to any of the other questions. (I certainly didn't spot any others like that - just the Paris one.) </p>
Adrian
I'm with adrian on this one, same score, smae question wrong for the same reason!<br />
OllyAitch
<p>Holy crap, 100% -helps being an openminded skeptic who debates for fun constantly</p><p> </p><p>Adrian-you made a personal inference, logic was interferred with. but you recovered, right? </p>
Lynn
<p>the last one..very funny. comparing atomic compostion with molecular analysis. </p><p>This test would be a great one for population maps! </p>
Lynn
<p>...thanks Lynn, although I didn't make a personal inference at all - quite the opposite. The quiz appears to make an unstated assumption that the two Parises in question 10 have to be one and the same. They don't. For example, consider the following:</p><p>The Eiffel Tower is in Paris</p><p>Paris is in Ontario, Canada</p><p>Therefore the Eiffel Tower is in Canada.</p><p>The first two statements are completely true and logically sound, but the concluding statement doesn't follow from them. (Well, not unless somewhere in Canada also has an Eiffel Tower.) This example is, to all intents and purposes, exactly the same as question 10 of the test. I've already dropped the test author(s) an email asking about it. </p>
Adrian
<p>I think that the Paris question is valid in the context of a logic problem. Valid is not the same as true. Your example about the Eiffel Tower is indeed valid. You are adding extraneous information which is not correct :</p><p>X is in Y</p><p>Y is in Z</p><p>Therefore X is in Z </p><p>is entirely valid logically.You can;t bring semantics into it. Replace all terms with multiple meanings with symbols and you get the correct logical answer. This is not the same as the true answer<br /></p>
Lindsay
However, I'm still the awkward kind of so-and-so who would reply "but who says that the two Y's represent the same thing"? (You can tell that I've left computing science behind and now spend a fair bit of my life dealing with more vague and human things can't you?) I guess that the difference between the Paris question and all of the others for me is that none of the others seem to have the potential for that particular kind of ambiguity. Looking at the comments about the test on Neatorama, I'd guess that the Paris question is the second most debated after the water one. With the poor murder victim coming a close third! All good stuff anyway.
Adrian
<p>A-Lindsay made my point quite distinctly, while I trumped it up to common 'accumulation'. </p><p>L-I winged it on mental argument and totally didn't think through expression methods....duh.</p><p>PARIS= is a pronoun</p><p>MURDER=circumstance and inference is not evidence. </p><p>WATER=molecular content differs from atomic content. </p><p>I didn't read the long explanations, this is how I got my pin. </p>
Lynn
"but who says that the two Y's represent the same thing" -you answered your own question. you are good, right with Lindsay in the same forest actually.
Lynn