Can you guys answer this without using AI? You also have to do it in 1 minute 20 seconds.
>>85157003I can do it by intuition and say: B
>>85157097B is incorrect. Does anyone else want to take a crack at it?
>>85157003E. Took me 20 seconds.
>>85157114>B is incorrect.I would say that's just your opinion.
>>85157003whats the flaw supposed to be?
>>85157134>A claims Q>B claims not Q>Therefore B is wrong>Therefore Q
>>85157123>>85157130It's not my opinion, here's the actual answer and explanation.The Original Flaw: The argument is presented with two conflicting claims. It arbitrarily assumes one claim is absolute fact (Stallworth's) in order to definitively prove the other claim is a lie (Henning's).Why (A) is Correct: It commits the exact same error. It arbitrarily assumes the TV news claim is an absolute fact to definitively prove the newspaper's claim is false.Why the Others are Incorrect:(B) makes an illogical leap to assign blame (a causal flaw), rather than disproving a claim.(C) is logically valid. It makes a safe, conditional conclusion ("If Galindo is correct..."), rather than an absolute one.(D) only has one source (political rivals), so it lacks the necessary conflict between two different sources.(E) commits a part-to-whole flaw (assuming a loss in manufacturing jobs means the overall unemployment rate couldn't have dropped).
>>85157172I still don't see the flaw. It says if he supported it it would have passed
>>85157189I think the point is that it depends 100% on Stallworth's original claim being true which is the flaw.
>>85157233This. The point is that Stallworth could have failed to back the original proposal, since the outcome in this case requires both of them to back it. I'm too drunk to give a fuck about the other scenarios.
>>85157189>If Henning ALSO supported the proposal, it would have received government approval.
>>85157233>>85157263>>85157265i see the issue. you're supposed to assume the entire paragraph is her claim even though it doesn't say that.
>>85157003What kind of exam is this? Is this question considered hard?
>>85157177>(B) makes an illogical leap to assign blame (a causal flaw), rather than disproving a claim.Who says that logic is always right? Maybe the blame is justified on an emotional level.
>>85157291It's from the LSAT which is the exam people take to get into Law School. Yeah this question would be one of the top 2-3 hardest on any given exam.
>>85157296On this exam, it's never about emotions just pure logic. A lot of the premises make no sense in the real world to confuse you.
>>85157003I could not have done that under a time limit. But if you want to know how I thought:Q: She wants to do thing. If he did thing, we would have won. We lost, so it's his fault (Typical man. I hate men).A: An accident occurred on street A. But Morgan didn't see it happen. Therefore, the reporter was wrong and a fucking bitch.B: Some bullshit about statistics.C: Some retarded argument about landfills.D: Harris allegedly sucks the dicks of developers, says her political rivals.E: Some bullshit about statistics.
>>85157323>just pure logic>make no sense in the real world What is it even good for then?
>>85157278No, the only part that is Stallworth's claim is the first sentence.
>>85157341>What is it even good for then?When you're reading legal documents in Law School, you have to read very quickly and comprehend the arguments logically instead of just using appeals to emotion or other things that might work IRL. It's like the difference between Chuck and Jimmy in BCS.
>>85157392https://www.youtube.com/shorts/69JvgViLd_0
>>85157278See pic related. Communicating poorly is not cleverness.
>>85157359Oh I see the confusion. When something is stated as a fact on a test I always thought you are supposed to take it as a fact. I guess you are supposed to pretend this is a disembodied narrator who is being fooled by someone's lie. That's retarded
>>85157392Man...you make it hard for me to troll you.Cheers.
>>85157003A, didn't read it whatsoever.
>>85157177The original is also a part to whole flaw.>assuming the loss of a specific person's vote is the reason the overall vote was lost when the evidence points to the contraryThe prompt doesn't say anything about whether this is what Stallworth thinks or not. It simply states Stallworth voted in favor of the proposal and then made the erroneous claim that if Henning also voted favorably, the proposal would've gotten government approval.
>>85157416That tripped me up too, but I was saved by the question type. Answer A also insists that Morgan could not have witnessed the accident if it occurred on Aylmer Street. If it asked how the reasoning was flawed, I would have been at a loss.
>>85157455The prompt doesn't actually state as a fact that Stallworth voted in favor, it specifically notes she only claims to have supported it. Also, the rule about Henning's support guaranteeing approval isn't something Stallworth said, it's just a factual premise set up by the author of the question. Because of that, we're not dealing with a part-to-whole situation where we're guessing the weight of a single vote. It's just strict conditional logic. If both supported it, it would have passed. Since it didn't pass, we know for a fact that at least one of them is lying. The actual logical leap happens when the author arbitrarily decides to trust Stallworth's unverified word as the absolute truth just to pin all the blame on Henning.
>>85157003Here's a question that would be considered among the easiest on the exam.
>>85157416The test gives you a statement and explicitly tells you it is fallacious. You are literally supposed to assume it is wrong. Literally what is the problem?
>>85157510Ebecause it's the longest answer
>>85157495I fuckign trusted Stallworth for no reason fuuuuuu
>>85157561That's right, I guess this one is pretty obvious. If they're specifically eating the leaves during the rainy season only then it implies they're actually doing it to get rid of them.
>>85157003It's A you retard. Are zoomies really outsourcing all their basic logic skills to glorified Markov chain generators?
>>85157613Surely with that intelligence you're doing something with it right anon?
>>85157003you're not showing off a usecase though. this is like trying to enforce every person learns calculus. That's not a compelling argument for AI, since not everybody on earth needs to learn calculus, let alone fucking use it in their daily life.
>>85157632This thread isn't meant to show off AI, I'm just asking anons if they can naturally do this problem and not to cheat. Personally, I found this question incredibly difficult given the time constraints.
>>85157632What this boils down to is "spot the logical fallacy" which as we all know, doesn't actually win arguments. But I thought you accidentally posted in the wrong thread at first because this has nothing to do with AI.
>>85157613Nah it sounds like E to me faggot
there, how about this, I have no idea what you are studying, I am just using my regular reasoning
>>85157748Your reasoning for A makes sense in the real world, but on the exam if it isn't stated as certain then it isn't necessarily true.
>>85157003Doesn't make any sense. It's not flawed. It says right there that if Henning supported it, then it would have been approved. A guarantee. It was NOT approved. This is 2+2 stuff.
>>85157003OK I will give my go. The original argument is to this tune>Someone claims one thing.>Someone else claims another thing, which contradicts the first.>At least one of these things has to be false.>Therefore, the second is falsewhich is stupid because the first can be false instead. It's also possible that both are false but in that case her conclusion wouldn't be incorrect just illogicalA)>Someone claims one thing>That same person claims another thing, which contradicts the first>Therefore, the second claim is incorrectwhich is stupid because the first can be false instead. It's also possible that both are false but in that case the conclusion wouldn't be incorrect just illogical. This is a little different than the first but is quite similar. B)>Someone claims one thing>Someone else claims another thing>Therefore, my conclusionthis one is stupid insofar as the premises are questionable but that is quite different than the original argument's issue. So I would cross this one out.C)>Someone claims one thing>Someone else claims another thing, which contradicts the first.>Therefore, if the second is true, the first is false.this is completely logical. Note it only makes a conditional based on the second being true. So I would cross this one out. (note after i finished e, this one is also illogical if it's premises are false, that kapoor and galindo claim these things, but that again isn't really the same as the original.)D)>Someone claims one thing.>This other thing is also true.>Therefore, conclusionthis is illogical insofar as the premises are questionable which again is quite different than the original argument's issue. So I would cross this one out.(1/2)
>>85157961(2/2)E)>Someone claims one thing>This other thing is also true, which contradicts the first>Therefore, the first is not truethis is illogical as the second thing does not actually contradict the first. A city can lose manufacturing jobs and still decline in unemployment from other sectors. It is also illogical insofar as the premises are false, but I'm pretty sure all of these are so whatever. This issue is different than the original and so I would cross it out.So all in all I would choose A as the most similar.Oh and I probably spent more than the alotted time on this haha. More like definitely. But I probably could have answered it quicker if I didn't elaborate.
>>85157965>>85157961Well done anon, that's pretty much right.
>>85157114B is correct. Op is retarded.
>>85157970Thank ya, thank ya very muuuuch. I'll be here all night.
>>85157560It's just confusing since there's no human element. How does a test make a flawed argument? It should be in quotation marks or something.
>>85157003It's A. Not going to lie it would've taken me less than one minute to solve if I didn't speedread the first time and instantly disregarded the answer because I thought it went:>A claim X>If X, B would not Y>Thus, A was wrong in claiming that B did Y (the error being obviously that A never claimed anything but X)Instead of:>A claim X>if X, B would not Y>Thus, C was wrong in claiming that B did Y (the error being arbitrarily reasoning C as being wrong out of the two mutually exclusive claims made by C and A)
>>85157003A is the closest, but it took me 2 minutes because I read slowly. I wasn't sure, but I then took 10 minutes and thought it out.The argument presented is: if (S and H)then A. Not A, so not HAnswer A:T = the TV report's wordA = Almer Street accidentM = Morgan seeing itN = Newspaper report's wordIf (T) then A, if (A) then not M, if (N) then M and A, so not NAnswer B:G = city government's wordB = the peolle are behind on taxesP = private instituteH = the city government's taxes are highF = the city's faultIf G then B, if P then H, so FDoesn't work. Nope. It doesn't follow. And nothing here contridicts.Answer C:I read over it. It doesn't follow because they're not even arguing over the same subject. If it's unsuitable, that doesn't have to do with the danger to the public.Abswer DR = word of Herris rivalsD = Herris supports le property developersOkay, no wait. This one doesn't track. Herris's rivals say she supports property developers, given the second premise, that makes her a good mayor.Answer EIf the manufacturing jobs are declining, we'd expect to see a rise in unemployment. Same issue as D, here. The connection isn't very explicit.
>>85158423Yeah if you really do it that way it's possible, but the exam expects you to do 25 questions in 35 minutes.
>>85158527it must be a reading ability and comprehension test to some degree then
>>85158562If you're one of those people who can read really fast but skim and not get all the details or make assumptions that are good in real life you'll actually get a bad score. There are bunch of books on exact techniques to use for it.
>>85158588there are books for this particular test?just to get good at it?what test is it
>>85158285i made the same reading comprehension mistake as you lol
>>85158677It's LSAT, the law school admissions exam. It's particularly important to getting accepted compared to other graduate exams.
>>85158527Try to apply for accessability or autism or processing issues to get extra time and then do it the slow way.
>>85160770>Try to apply for accessability or autism or processing issues to get extra time and then do it the slow way.I've thought about it, but you need an official diagnosis stating why you need the extra time or accommodations. If I had 50% more time, I think I'd score way higher but yeah this exam is a total mindfuck. I hate it.
>>85157003It took me more than a minute and 20 seconds to even read the question and answer choices.
>>85160857You need to be a really fast reader tbqh. They recommend you finish reading and understanding the prompt entirely within 40 seconds, and then you have 40 seconds to look at the answers and pick.
