I don't understand this logic question/answer

[mizzou]

True: If a person is a Intelligence Research Specialist, the person is an employee of the U.S. Government.

Valid Conclusion: If a person is not an employee of the U.S. Government, the person is not an Intelligence Research Specialist.

-----------

I would have said "INVALID" because, why is the government the only place with someone having the title "Intelligence Research Specialist"?



http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov...h/logical_reasoning.ctt/logical_reasoning.pdf

page 10

Is it "VALID" because the logical statement simply states, If you are "this" then you work "here" (since it does not say "may work" or "might work")

Even though in reality it is wrong, given the context of the information, it is true?

This seems to me one of those "trick" questions.

...sooo even erroneous facts must be taken as FACTS on a logic test? :facepalm:

 

[lxskllr]

Questions don't have to have any basis in reality. If they tell you sky is full of purple dragons, for the sake of that question, it's full of purple dragons. It seems pretty clearcut to me. It would be a trick question, if they said that you don't have to be in the government to be an intelligence worker, and that you should have known that.

 

[a123456]

I think you're thinking about it too hard. The conclusion is true because it's the contrapositive of the original statement. It's one of those logic axioms.

 

[TecHNooB]

yes.

 

[mizzou]

yes, definitly thinking about it too hard, that's my problem with these tests

I've always scored in an extremely high % on logic tests, but I'm definitly not perfect on them!

For the most part, they do not pick overtly false facts like dragons, they are usually based on common knowledge.

But yeah, if they tell you farts smell like roses. They smell like roses.

 

[guyver01]

For the most part, they do not pick overtly false facts like dragons, they are usually based on common knowledge.

Exactly. They want to see if you can answer based on the information presented.. and ONLY the information presented... and not extrapolate wildly based on information not presented.

 

[schneiderguy]

p implies q

(not q) implies (not p)

 

[mizzou]

Another gripe, I just took the practice test and although it was obvious which answer was "most correct"

this option made my eyes bleed

B) if clause Inc. cannot show that it was not negligent, then it is not liable.


(sounds of english teachers crying)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

All X that are Q are necessarily Y.
X is not Y.
Therefore X is not Q.

 

[StageLeft]

The statement has already told you that by virtue of being an IRS that they are an employee of the US government.

"why is the government the only place with someone having the title "Intelligence Research Specialist"?"

Why? Because the statement just told you that. So if a person is an IRS they are absolutely in the US gov. And thus if they are not in the US gov they cannot possibly be an iRS.

Now if you want to get into totally irrelevant factors like _title_ of IRS, well yeah I guess if you want to deliberately convolute the question you could do so with that kind of thing, but they have locked you up. They never said:

This person is an IRS. This person is in the US gov.

If that's all it was, then the logical conclusion would have been that just because somebody is not in US gov doesn't mean they are an IRS, but they have told you it must be so.

OH and regarding my credentials last year I took a well-reputed IQ test and scored 164 for a job interview. However, on the next test entitled "Intellectual Honesty & Ethics" I scored a fail.

 

[DrPizza]

This thread made me want to weep. I can teach them inverse, converse, contrapositive, and that the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement. But I'm at a loss for how to teach students common sense. "If you live in Toronto, then you live in Canada. True or False?" "False, because you could just be visiting in Toronto, but not live there year round." "AHHHHHYYYYYYY!! <bangs head against wall>"

 

[schneiderguy]

This thread made me want to weep. I can teach them inverse, converse, contrapositive, and that the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement. But I'm at a loss for how to teach students common sense. "If you live in Toronto, then you live in Canada. True or False?" "False, because you could just be visiting in Toronto, but not live there year round." "AHHHHHYYYYYYY!! <bangs head against wall>"

Maybe if you made them bang their heads against the wall they would understand :awe:

 

[pmv]

nm

 

[Mike Gayner]

LOL logic fail. OP, don't leave school. Ever.

edit:

Even though in reality it is wrong, given the context of the information, it is true?

Apparently you fail to understand the purpose of a logic question. This is also a logic question:

All heavenly bodies are made of cheese.
The moon is a heavenly body.
The moon must be made of cheese.

This is VALID. It's not a question of fact, it's a question of logic. The premise may not be correct, but that's not the purpose of the question. IF the premise is correct, then the moon MUST be made of cheese.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Whether its true or false would surely depend on the context in which you said it?

e.g. if you lived in Durham you'd presumably say it was false

Toronto is a village in County Durham, in England. It is situated a short distance to the north of Bishop Auckland and was represented in Wear Valley District Council until that authority was merged into Durham County Council in April 2009. (wiki).

That's what he means when he says you can't teach common sense. Maybe he needs to make it obvious for dummies - "If you live in Toronto, Canada (longitude/latitude xxxx), then you live in Canada." Hurr de durrr.

BTW nice ninja edit.

 

[guyver01]

All people who bang their heads against the walls are ATOT Mods.
DrPizza is banging his head against the wall
THEREFORE DrPizza is an ATOT mod.

 

[Farang]

If X, then Y.

If not Y, then not X. Because if X were true, Y would have been also by virtue of the first statement.

 

[guyver01]

It's ok.. the OP is still taking Junior High school classes... once he hits high school... he'll learn.. or fail.


or.. to put it in the form of a logic equation

Logic is Taught in Junior High.
Mizzou is learning Logic.
THEREFORE Mizzou is in Junior High.

 

[lxskllr]

or.. to put it in the form of a logic equation

Logic is Taught in Junior High.
Mizzou is learning Logic.
THEREFORE Mizzou is in Junior High.

I don't think that's correct.

 

[guyver01]

I don't think that's correct.

of course you dont. you don't understand logic.

 

[lxskllr]

of course you dont. you don't understand logic.

Hmm....

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't think that's correct.

It isn't stated in a necessarily valid logical form, no.

You could restate it thusly, however:

If a person is learning logic, then he is in junior high.
Mizzou is learning logic.
Therefore, Mizzou is in junior high.

 

[lxskllr]

It isn't stated in a necessarily valid logical form, no.

You could restate it thusly, however:

If a person is learning logic, then he is in junior high.
Mizzou is learning logic.
Therefore, Mizzou is in junior high.

Now that I can buy :^)

 

[child of wonder]

Think of it this way:

ALL Intelligence Research Specialists work for the US government.

If you do not work for the government you cannot be an Intelligence Research Specialist since being a US government employee is a necessary condition.

 

[Rubycon]

That is why it is important to be specific, Bob.