Happy birthday, MM!
Natter 62: The 62nd Natter
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Dude... so that's why he hasn't been working on that transporter.
He's been brokering world peace. Or else slipping roofies into the drinks of high ranking officials.
HBD, MM!
I got 14 on that logic test, but it didn't tell me what one I got wrong, and I can't figure it out.
Happy Birthday Miraclman!
Many happy returns of the day, MM!
I think, on 15 the "we can predict" clause makes it hinkier. That should have been left out.
Contra Debet, the "we can predict" clause can't be left out, because that's exactly the point of the thing -- the logical statement isn't about whether water is or isn't H2O, but about whether the preceding statements imply anything about what is or isn't *predictable*. It isn't hedge-language at all.
Amych, would "we should be able to predict" work as well for you? Because that works better for me.
I really don't like 15. It's sneaky. (Billytea's reasoning makes much more sense to me than the one given by the quiz.)
Okay, but if the hypothetical future observation of "water" reveals a different chemical composition, then it's not water (as per premise #1), and doesn't apply to the problem.
Debet, nope. "should" and "can" are totally different statements here -- the question is asking for absolute confidence, but common sense and normal English want us to read it as something more like your "should" construction, which incidentally I totally agree with in the real world. Logic gets weird sometimes. But it's absolutely a sneaky question -- Jess is right.