• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Simple logic test: Version 2

C

chuckywang

Lifer
You are presented with 4 cards. Each side has either a letter or a number. They are laid in front of you as follows:

[*]A[*]B[*]1[*]2

Which cards must be flipped over in order to test the following statement:

If there is a vowel on one side, then there must be an odd number on the other side.

 
Just A. The statement doesn't say that only vowels have odd numbers on the other side, so no need to flip 1.
 
A, B, and 2. You have to see if A has an odd number on the other side, and you have to see if B and 2 have vowels on the other side. If B has a vowel on the other side, invalid statement. If 2 has a vowel on the other side, invalid statement.

Beaten by 2 people.
 
Isn't this the same as the last one?

Edit: nevermind, I see the distinction.

The answer is A, B and 2.

1 is the only card that you could guarantee meets the requirements without flipping it. A, B annd 2 could all have vowels on the other side and would NOT meet the requirements.
 
How is this any different than the original one?

And why did you make a new thread w/ the same question?

edit: I see the diff.

You should bold the -OR- in your OP.
 
Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
How is this any different than the original one?

And why did you make a new thread w/ the same question?

edit: I see the diff.

You should bold the -OR- in your OP.
Click to expand...

That's not what makes it different. In the original problem, each side has a letter or a number as well. I purposefully left open the fact that both sides could have letters or both sides could have numbers. I did that by NOT writing that condition that was in the original problem, so there is nothing to bold.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Isn't this the same as the last one?

Edit: nevermind, I see the distinction.

The answer is A, B and 2.

1 is the only card that you could guarantee meets the requirements without flipping it. A, B annd 2 could all have vowels on the other side and would NOT meet the requirements.
Click to expand...

This sounds right to me. What if the A card has a 2 on the other side. Have to flip it to see. What if B has an A on the other side. If it does the rule is not true so you gotta flip it to see. Same with 2. What if it has an A on the other side. But no matter what 1 has on the back the rule is always true because of all the things on the other side A would be one of them. So you don't really need to flip it.
 
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
How is this any different than the original one?

And why did you make a new thread w/ the same question?

edit: I see the diff.

You should bold the -OR- in your OP.
Click to expand...

That's not what makes it different. In the original problem, each side has a letter or a number as well. I purposefully left open the fact that both sides could have letters or both sides could have numbers. I did that by NOT writing that condition that was in the original problem, so there is nothing to bold.
Click to expand...

Uh...go back to the original and read it again.

What are you talking about? The original says cards have number on one side, and letter on the other.

Yours can be letter on both, numbers on both, or mix.

That's how it's different, thus you should bold "either a letter or a number" b/c that IS different than the original.
 
Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
How is this any different than the original one?

And why did you make a new thread w/ the same question?

edit: I see the diff.

You should bold the -OR- in your OP.
Click to expand...

That's not what makes it different. In the original problem, each side has a letter or a number as well. I purposefully left open the fact that both sides could have letters or both sides could have numbers. I did that by NOT writing that condition that was in the original problem, so there is nothing to bold.
Click to expand...

Uh...go back to the original and read it again.

What are you talking about? The original says cards have number on one side, and letter on the other.

Yours can be letter on both, numbers on both, or mix.

That's how it's different, thus you should bold "either a letter or a number" b/c that IS different than the original.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell me, in the original problem, neither side has a letter nor a number?

The statement "each side has a letter or a number" applies to both problems. It's just that in the original problem, the statement is too general since we have the added constraint that one side has a number and the other side has a letter. There is no such constraint in my version.
 
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
Originally posted by: chuckywang
Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
How is this any different than the original one?

And why did you make a new thread w/ the same question?

edit: I see the diff.

You should bold the -OR- in your OP.
Click to expand...

That's not what makes it different. In the original problem, each side has a letter or a number as well. I purposefully left open the fact that both sides could have letters or both sides could have numbers. I did that by NOT writing that condition that was in the original problem, so there is nothing to bold.
Click to expand...

Uh...go back to the original and read it again.

What are you talking about? The original says cards have number on one side, and letter on the other.

Yours can be letter on both, numbers on both, or mix.

That's how it's different, thus you should bold "either a letter or a number" b/c that IS different than the original.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to tell me, in the original problem, neither side has a letter nor a number?

The statement "each side has a letter or a number" applies to both problems. It's just that in the original problem, the statement is too general since we have the added constraint that one side has a number and the other side has a letter. There is no such constraint in my version.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I'm implying as well...and I was just saying if you bolded your condition, it would have been easier to see.

Just reading the problem through, it could easily be overlooked about the difference between this prob and the original.
 
If P, then Q. is the statement. The logical inverse is, If not Q, then not P.

If P then Q ==> A tests this

If not Q, then not P ==> 2 tests this.

A, 2 is the answer.

I told you, I'm a genius
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
If P, then Q. is the statement. The logical inverse is, If not Q, then not P.

If P then Q ==> A tests this

If not Q, then not P ==> 2 tests this.

A, 2 is the answer.

I told you, I'm a genius
Click to expand...

Genius you may be, but at logic it does not appear to be so.
 
Well, turning over 2 only confirms the hypothesis - I'm aware of that - but the question is written with a plural, suggesting that this is the answer wanted.

Trust me, bro - I'd stomp you at learning in any context.
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
Well, turning over 2 only confirms the hypothesis - I'm aware of that - but the questions is written with a plural, suggesting that this is the answer wanted.

Trust me, bro - I'd stomp you in at learning in any context.
Click to expand...

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

And as for your answers, you would be correct if one side had to have a letter while the other had a number, but that is not the case. There can be two letters or two numbers as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top