Quote:
|
Originally Posted by inkriminator
Notice I said fetus, not newborn baby. A fetus is the equivalent to a human in the same way that an acorn is equivalent to a tree.
|
Logically invalid. We KNOW that a seed does not have rings. However it is still being hotly debated, mainly in abortion arguments, whether the fetus is even a person or not. If the fetus is a person, it may have some quantity of wisdom already. After all I doubt there are billboards in the birth canal teaching the fetus how to suckle and cry and get attention as it's on it's way out
Quote:
|
We know that a tree and a human at some point have zero rings and zero wisdom (at the moment of conception if you prefer).
|
I'll give you that.
Quote:
|
And we also know that during their life as humans/trees, at any year they have more rings/wisdom, than they did at a previous year.
|
No, actually we don't. While it's true that the tree will usually (perhaps always, I'm not a tree-guy) have a new ring at the end of a year, it does not always stand to reason that a human will be any more wise at the end of the year than at the beginning. I have a coworker who is a shining example of this
Quote:
(snip)
Thus, I believe I have proved conclusively that you cannot look at initial variables, nor rates of increase as a method to answer this problem.
|
OK, but then it ceases to be a logic problem and becomes instead a grammar problem. That's my whole issue with the question to begin with. It's not asking for you to apply logic, but instead to apply sentence structure. If a collegiate entrance test doesn't understand the difference between grammar and logic, then we're in a considerable amount of trouble.