Explain why this is wrong:
Nothing is better than a good sandwich.
A bad sandwich is better than nothing.
Therefore, a bad sandwich is better than a good sandwich.
DO IT FOR THE ACTIVITY
it's wrong because nothing is better than a good sandwich but a bad sandwich is better than nothing therefore it's wrong
the conclusion should be "therefore, a bad sandwich is better than a good sandwich"
Quote from: Travis on November 03, 2010, 06:25:47 PM
it's wrong because nothing is better than a good sandwich but a bad sandwich is better than nothing therefore it's wrong
Soo... what's the explanation?
Quote from: Nyerp on November 03, 2010, 06:27:05 PM
the conclusion should be "therefore, a bad sandwich is better than a good sandwich"
DERP thanks
THAT IS THE EXPLANATION
THINK OF "NOTHING" AS AN OBJECT
Quote from: Travis on November 03, 2010, 06:29:51 PM
THAT IS THE EXPLANATION
THINK OF "NOTHING" AS AN OBJECT
k but you said
NOTHING better than GOOD
BAD better than GOOD
all you did was restate what i said
STOP CONFUSING ME
Quote from: Travis on November 03, 2010, 06:32:45 PM
STOP CONFUSING ME
YOU'RE CONFUSING ME
explain why it's wrong gogogo
This puzzle sucks.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:9bLw21d1w9mQxM:http://www.gamesugar.net/media/images/2010/09/proflayton.jpg&t=1)
Puzzle Solved!
K, solve my puzzle now.
In each case, the word "nothing" has a different definition. The first sentence means "There is not a single thing that is better than a good sandwich." The second sentence means "Having a bad sandwich is better than not having anything at all."
Porblem sulvd.
WINNER
LEVEL TWO:
The hand touches the pen.
The pen touches the paper.
The hand touches the paper.
Logical fallacy. Allow me to explain.
Say I were to say that there are three colored circles on a piece of paper. The green overlaps the blue. The blue overlaps the red. So the green must overlap the red, right?
[spoiler](http://i.imgur.com/692aM.jpg)[/spoiler]
The hand is the paper
Popsicle wins again.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Quote from: TheSequel on November 03, 2010, 07:16:35 PM
WINNER
LEVEL TWO:
The hand touches the pen.
The pen touches the paper.
The hand touches the paper.
uh the hand touches one end of the pen and the other end of the pen touches the paper
Quote from: TheSequel on November 03, 2010, 07:22:48 PM
Popsicle wins again.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a mortal.
Socrates is a man.
I don't even get what the problem is with this one.
you can't deduce that socrates is a man just by him being mortal. it says all men are mortal, but it doesn't specify if something else is
a delayed sandwich is good eventually
but a bad sandwich is bad forever
Quote from: XLR on November 03, 2010, 07:32:56 PM
a delayed sandwich is good eventually
but a bad sandwich is bad forever
i lol'd
Quote from: Travis on November 03, 2010, 07:24:36 PM
you can't deduce that socrates is a man just by him being mortal. it says all men are mortal, but it doesn't specify if something else is
yep yep Travis wins
All cats are mammals.
No dogs are cats.
Dogs aren't mammals.
answer mine first
Quote from: XLR on November 03, 2010, 07:37:48 PM
answer mine first
It has no conclusion. =\
Anyway, it's incorrect to assume that a delayed sammich is good. So it's wrong because the first premise is negative (false).
Quote from: XLR on November 03, 2010, 07:37:48 PM
answer mine first
[spoiler=the answer]8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
hocuspocus;[/spoiler]
Sequel these are stupid and all have almost the same exact answers.
sequel you're a dumb bastard
what fallacy am i using
Quote from: XLR on November 03, 2010, 07:40:47 PM
sequel you're a dumb bastard
what fallacy am i using
ad hominem
Quote from: Man of Popsicle on November 03, 2010, 07:40:22 PM
Sequel these are stupid and all have almost the same exact answers.
Make your own then.
Quote from: TheSequel on November 03, 2010, 07:43:07 PM
Make your own then.
I don't want to. Because they're stupid.
STUPID.
Quote from: Man of Popsicle on November 03, 2010, 07:45:09 PM
I don't want to. Because they're stupid.
STUPID.
It's hard to make your own :(
All penises are penises
No penises are vaginas
Therefore vaginas aren't penises
Quote from: Cookie on November 03, 2010, 07:47:04 PM
All penises are penises
No penises are vaginas
Therefore vaginas aren't penises
This fuck doesn't have a fallacy.
Everything I say is true
Everything I say is false
Therefor you must not speak?
This statement is true
The above statement is false
What the fuck
Can God microwave a burrito so hot not even he can eat it?
Then why call him all powerful :o
Quote from: XLR on November 03, 2010, 08:00:54 PM
This statement is true
The above statement is false
What the fuck
The first statement is false, it isn't true.
I have no mouth and I must scream.
Quote from: Admin on November 03, 2010, 08:04:28 PM
The first statement is false, it isn't true.
Says who?
Quote from: Nyerp on November 03, 2010, 08:05:26 PM
I have no mouth and I must scream.
You have vocal cords, therefore you can still scream
Quote from: Admin on November 03, 2010, 07:59:35 PM
Everything I say is true
Everything I say is false
It's not possible for two opposites to be true all the time.
Quote from: Admin on November 03, 2010, 08:04:28 PM
The first statement is false, it isn't true.
But the first statement is true, then the second contradicts it. You can't tell which is true and which is false.
Quote from: Nyerp on November 03, 2010, 08:05:26 PM
I have no mouth and I must scream.
Are you an inanimate object?
Quote from: TheSequel on November 03, 2010, 08:07:08 PM
It's not possible for two opposites to be true all the time.
Tyler already answered it
Quote from: TheSequel on November 03, 2010, 08:07:08 PM
But the first statement is true, then the second contradicts it. You can't tell which is true and which is false.
The 2nd statement tells me that the first statement was false in saying it is true.
Quote from: Admin on November 03, 2010, 08:13:54 PM
The 2nd statement tells me that the first statement was false in saying it is true.
The first statements says that it is true though. So is it true, or is it false like the second says?
Quote from: Cookie on November 03, 2010, 08:21:44 PM
So you think. n_n
Just because a penis isn't a vagina doesn't mean a vagina can't be a penis. The conclusion is valid, but the logic is wrong.
Am I right? Because following this logic you could say:
All dogs are mammals.
No dogs are cats.
No cats are mammals.
Those ones with valid conclusions are tricky
No dogs are cats
No cats are dogs
Therefore all dogs are dogs.
hocuspocus;
Quote from: IKANAIDE on November 04, 2010, 09:42:06 AM
No dogs are cats
No cats are dogs
Therefore all dogs are dogs.
hocuspocus;
wat
Quote from: IKANAIDE on November 04, 2010, 09:42:06 AM
No dogs are cats
No cats are dogs
Therefore all dogs are dogs.
hocuspocus;
Wrong because you can have a conclusion from 2 negative premises (2 premises say something is not).
Quote from: TheSequel on November 04, 2010, 04:25:57 PM
Wrong because you can have a conclusion from 2 negative premises (2 premises say something is not).
I tried :(