Logic101 Test Questions

[Jester]

If you are interested in joining the Logic101 usergroup, it is required that you send me the correct answers posted below. Please note the rules:

1. If you are not accepted, you may try again after two weeks.
2. Please format your answers as in the "answer sheet" in the first response, and PM them to me when you are ready. Please do NOT post answers here.
3. On your honor, try your best to commit yourself to checking all future posts for logical fallacies, and to being gracious when a slip is pointed out.

[Jester]

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

[Jester]

Section 1
Select the fallacy, if any, that is being committed

1.
-Premise:
Warming has been caused by sunspots, fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, and volcanic eruptions.
-Conclusion:
Warming cannot be caused by mankind

A. Circulus in Probando
B. Genetic Fallacy
C. Argumentum ad Baculum
D. Non Sequitur


2.
-Premise:
My opponent claims that drunk driving is safe
But, she consistently refuses to get into a car with a drunk driver
-Conclusion:
Drunk driving is clearly dangerous

A. Straw Man
B. Tu Quoque
C. Argumentum ad Ignoratium
D. Valid Logic


3.
-Premise:
Theory A is not supported by empirical data
-Conclusion:
Theory A is false

A. Circulus in Probando
B. Argumentum ad Ignoratium
C. Genetic Fallacy
D. Valid Logic


4.
-Premise:
Every Norwegian on the news is a disaster victim
-Conclusion:
Norway has a high rate of disasters

A. Argumentum ad Populum
B. Argumentum ad Antiquitarium
C. Genetic Fallacy
D. Biased Sample


5.
-Premise:
Over 90 percent of scientists believe that abortion is wrong
-Conclusion:
Abortion is almost certainly wrong

A. Circulus in Probando
B. Genetic Fallacy
C. Equivocation
D. Argumentum ad Verecundiam


6.
-Premise:
Bad things are of no value
A thing is bad if it is used to do bad things
This hammer was used to kill someone
-Conclusion:
This is a bad hammer
This hammer is of no value

A. Equivocation
B. Argumentum ad Novitatem
C. Genetic Fallacy
D. Ad Hominem


7.
-Premise:
Only mammals have hair
Kangaroos have hair
-Conclusion:
Kangaroos are mammals

A. Non Sequitur
B. Equivocation
C. Circulus in Probando
D. Valid Logic


8.
-Premise:
All believers in UFO conspiracies are delusional

-Conclusion:
UFO conspiracies are false

A. Ad Hominem
B. Non Sequitur
C. Argumentum ad Ignoratium
D. Valid Logic

[Jester]

Section 2
Select the conclusion that can be drawn from the premises

9.
-Premise:
All cats are animals
All little animals are mean

-Conclusion:
A. All mean cats are little animals
B. Some little cats are not mean animals
C. Some mean cats are not mean animals
D. All little cats are mean animals


10.
-Premise:
All siamese are cats
All mammals are animals
Some mammals are not cats

-Conclusion:
A. All cats are mammals
B. Some animals are not siamese
C. All cats are animals


11.
-Premise:
Some little cats are not mean animals
All cats are animals

-Conclusion:
A. Some cats are mean
B. Some little cats are not animals
C. Some animals are not mean
D. Some mean cats are not little animals
E. Some mean cats are little animals


12.
-Premise:
Some (Arps that are Borks) are not (Celps that are Dints)
All Arps are Celps

-Conclusion:
A. Some Arps that are Dints are Celps that are Borks
B. Some Celps are not Dints
C. Some Borks that are Dints are not Celps
D. Some Arps are Dints


13.
-Premise:
All W are X
All Y are Z
Some Y are not X

-Conclusion:
A. All W are Z
B. Some Z are not W
C. All W are Y


14.
-Premise:
All W are X
All Y are Z

-Conclusion:
A. All W that are Z are X that are not Y
B. All W that are Y are not X that are Z
C. Some W that are Z are X that are Y
D. Some W that are Y are not X that are Z
E. All W that are not Z are X that are not Y

[Jester]

Section 3
For the final section, simply select the appropriate answer


15.
Logic

A. Ensures accurate conclusions
B. Is always used if a true statement is being made
C. Can be overturned by science
D. Removes inconsistencies from an argument


16.
A fallacy....

A. Can be found in any argument which reaches a false conclusion
B. Cannot be found in arguments reaching true conclusions
C. Prevents the conclusion from logically following from the premises
D. All of the above


17.
An Axiom

A. Is ultimately required for any conclusion to occur
B. Is not supported by evidence
C. Is, implicitly or explicitly, part of any argument
D. All of the above


18.
A Deductive Argument

A. leads to a true conclusion so long as the logic is valid
B. provides conditional conclusions
C. both A and B
D. Neither A nor B


19.
Evidence
A. May be of different kinds, depending on the subject
B. Sometimes points to false conclusions
C. Is the only factor to be considered in an argument
D. Both A and B


20.
A Premise
A. Must be supported for an argument to be valid
B. Must be agreed upon before an argument is made
C. Does not exist in some arguments
D. Is often hidden, even from the maker of the argument


21.
Inductive Reasoning
A. Always involves probability judgments
B. Doesn’t always require premises
C. Is not used by scientists
D. Leads to certainty in conclusions


22.
A Valid Argument
A. Is always based in physical evidence
B. Necessarily leads to true conclusions
C. Always requires premises and logic
D. All of the above


23.
Absence of Evidence IS evidence of absence...
A. In all situations
B. In no situation
C. If it is established that we should see more evidence than we do
D. If it is established that the type of evidence needed is impossible to retrieve

[playhavock]

i've taken this test - is the person still around to grade it? pannic!!! @_@;

[playhavock]

Well, I took it again woot.

[Aetixintro]

To Logics

A bit of fun with logics under this topic, the Logic101 questions for the Logic101 Usergroup.

The deductions from above can be expressed this way, that may be more precise, but for the purpose of common language, then we leave it. Here is still:
UoD: Everything.
Humans: H
Aliens: A
Green: G (actually all green things)

Not really part:
(ForAll)H → (ForAll)G ( using the conditional → when we are combining properties leaves me the room to use the biconditional instead ≡ )
(ForAll)H ≡ (ForAll)G
(Exist)A ≡ (Forall)H
(Exist)A ≡ (Forall)G

1 │ ∀M
2 │ ∀M ≡ ∀R
3 │ ∃G ≡ ∀M
0 │------
( logical deduction in here. 2 biconditional eliminations and one biconditional introduction that ends up on the conclusion line. )
0 │-----
4 │ ∃G ≡ ∀R (should really be the biconditional introduction, but we don't go there today, it says line 4, but reality when all formalities are in, it's should be a bit lower, allowing room for the numbers inside the deduction section of this logical argument)

This is an example of a valid logical argument, but where logics is misused to make aliens appear both green and human which should be impossible in reality when human are certainly not green by natural skin colour, but rather brown, yellow, white or other...

Enjoy!

(Feel free to delete this nonsense. I've made this input as I'm awaiting some decisions on groups and more, whatever.)

[Aetixintro]

The Logics over again. Sorry, people. No intention to let you down.

The worded outline to accustom the formalisation below:
All humans are green. Some aliens, who may otherwise be normally skin coloured (brown, white, yellow...) are also green. And we get, as conclusion, the incredible that some aliens are humans (who are green). As this is incredible it is a fantasy! This is all ridiculous! In ending, we start with "all humans" so to avoid "injection" and "discharge" into the mix of logical deduction.

UoD: Everything.
Humans: H
Aliens: A
Green: G (actually all green things)

Not really part:
(ForAll)H → (ForAll)G ( using the conditional → when we are combining properties leaves me the room to use the biconditional instead ≡ )
(ForAll)H ≡ (ForAll)G
(Exist)A ≡ (Forall)H
(Exist)A ≡ (Forall)G

1 │ ∀H
2 │ ∀H ≡ ∀G
3 │ ∃A ≡ ∀G
0 │------
( logical deduction in here. 2 biconditional eliminations and one biconditional introduction that ends up on the conclusion line. )
0 │-----
4 │ ∃A ≡ ∀H (should really be the biconditional introduction, but we don't go there today, it says line 4, but reality when all formalities are in, it's should be a bit lower, allowing room for the numbers inside the deduction section of this logical argument)

(Uhhh... Errors can happen to everyone. I'm excused?! )

------
(Edit:)
Urls for logics, 4,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_( ... _arguments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_l ... rder_logic.

[Aetixintro]

Here is:

Suggestion is given to anybody for setting up Logic102 with
Graham Priest and Contradiction Logics placed soundly with the Austin Speech Acts and the Liars Paradox also solved.

So with this, for the people who have passed (into) Logic101, we discuss all the rest, the most advanced/"advanced", all matters logical. Also the worries under God, the Bible and the insults from "academics" against good people's intuitions for the way FORWARD!

We can set up this "chair" of reliability to serve under God and Truth, with the words over the Washington Monument,

By God and Truth, Ethics, Science, Logics and Religion - with the ecumenical Holy Books, complying with the uttermost tip point of intelligence.