mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
How Spiders Make Their Webs. Sir David Attenborough makes the process appear both simple and profound.
*
Some Protect the Ego by Working on Their Excuses Early. When you have a built-in reason for failure, the rare victory is even sweeter. (via Lifehacker)
*
Chatty Katty will talk your ear off. When your cat is already hyperactive, the last thing you want him in is your caffeine drink.
*
A class action lawsuit by residents of the Amazon may cost Chevron up to 23 billion dollars! No one disputes that Texaco (which was later acquired by Chevron) left an environmental mess in Ecuador; the question is who is legally responsible for rectifying it.
*
Can you ace this logic test? Or would you rather argue about the answers?
*
This dog wants her blanket! And she knows exactly how to get it.
*
Help determine the winners of the 2008 Weblog Awards. You can vote every 24 hours in 48 categories until January 13th. You might find some familiar names in the running.
*
The Ugliest Cars. Of course, this is a matter of opinion, so commenters had plenty to add.
Comments (13)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
Perhaps it’s because I’m an English teacher, I scored 100% on the logic test. Valid vs. invalid is very different from true vs. false.
posted by Keri on 1-7-2009 at 6:43 am
I’m a student who is averse to English and I scored a 100%.
Keri, is that a comma splice I see?
posted by Jake Le Master on 1-7-2009 at 8:32 am
100% on the logic test but then I’m a computer programmer. That’s my job.
posted by KJ on 1-7-2009 at 9:05 am
14/15 the could -vs- should tripped me up on the “eat a horse” question. That’s what I get for not slowing down to read the questions a second time.
posted by EMStoveken on 1-7-2009 at 10:19 am
Valid logic that is based on false or misleading information is faulty logic. This is what can make logical thinking dangerous. One false piece of information plugged into a line of reasoning can render the usefulness of logic obsolete.
If I say that I was born in November of 1775, and the DOI was signed in July of the following year, so therefore I lived during the signing of the DOI, I would be explicating a valid but faulty logical argument since the truth is that I was actually born in 1975.
Many people praise logic, but logic is worthless without truth. And while I do believe in the absolute nature of many truths, the elusive nature of our comprehension of truth lends an air of instability to any logical argument.
posted by Jeremy on 1-7-2009 at 10:25 am
Yes, I would like to argue about the answers on the logic test – specifically, number 15. I never really studied logic, but isn’t part of the point that we’re supposed to accept the premises? If so, and the composition of water is defined in the first premise, why is it in dispute?
More annoying, though, was the Venn diagram accompanying number one. If they’re not going to be drawn correctly, what’s the point of using Venn diagrams? Pet peeve.
posted by Betsy on 1-7-2009 at 10:38 am
100% on logic test–not surprised, it was the class in which I had the highest average in college long ago. Also the highest average in the class, which made the guys crazy.
posted by luvlogic on 1-7-2009 at 10:45 am
100% on logic. Not surprising–it was the class in which I had the highest average many years ago. Also the highest average in the class, which made the boys SO mad! Since I am a girl English major!
posted by luvlogic on 1-7-2009 at 10:59 am
I only got 87% on the logic test, but unlike Betsy or Jeremy it’s because I’m just on drugs.
posted by BassMan on 1-7-2009 at 11:19 am
Have to disagree on 15 (as was probably expected).
It makes the argument that something may look, act, smell, freeze like water but might not actually be water, but the conclusion in question was that every future examination *of water* would yield the same chemical composition, which should be valid based on assumption a. The conclusion was not based on things that look or act like water, but on examinations of, and only of, water.
posted by jso on 1-7-2009 at 1:10 pm
I also got a 15/15 on the logic test, but I have to concede your point, jso. I would not have thought of it like that at all.
posted by Orange on 1-7-2009 at 6:35 pm
I also got #15 wrong, but for a different reason. It was the only one that started with “We can predict that…”
Nothing in the premises prevented us making a incorrect prediction, therefore the argument is valid.
If it had said “Therefore every future examination of water…” it would be invalid.
Kind of makes me sound like a lawyer, doesn’t it?
posted by Marty on 1-7-2009 at 9:37 pm
I got 15 out of 15 correct on the logic test. I was rather suprised, since I somewhat guessed on the murder question.
posted by Michaela on 1-7-2009 at 11:47 pm