Shakran we are bound by the information given in the argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shakran
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
|
The only reason I brought up the fetus point was to say that the Initial Variable problem should not be a consideration. You bring up an acorn having zero rings initially...but an acorn is not a tree. When the tree is formed, who is to say that it has zero rings? At the moment that a tree becomes a tree, just as in the moment that a human becomes a human, you can imagine that they both have either some wisdom, or some rings. If you are assuming that a fetus has wisdom, push the argument back further to the zygote stage or even further to question if a single celled organism has wisdom, and if you believe this is possible then assuming that at the moment a tree becomes classified as a tree it has rings is not far fetched. Please re-read this at least twice before posting on it, not because I doubt your intelligence, but simply because I fear that I did a poor job of explaining my position.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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.
|
The second point cannot be argued against as it is stated in the problem, you must assume that it is true. I definitely agree though that it does not apply in real-life in all occasions.
If I read your intonations right, it seems as if we both agree on a number of points. 1) the test takers did a poor job. 2) The initial variable problem is not sufficient reason to go for either A or B.
In regards to your last comment, you should read my post about intrinsic variables, but since i'm such a nice guy, here you go.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me
After reading the question again, if sentence structure is not the reasoning behind the answer you could have another, slightly better reason for choosing A.
I believe the reasoning behind the answer is that all the variables in the example and in example A can be considered intrinsic properties of a certain object.
ie. In the example, altitude and thinness of air are intrinsic properties of a city
In choice A, age and wisdom are intrinsic properties of a person.
This does not hold true for choice B. I believe this is another reason why A could be the answer.
However even this is not bullet proof because it assumes that air IS an intrinsic property of a city and that a tree is not, reasonable assumptions to make...but you know what happens when you assume.
|
That would provide some logical basis for this question although i still think its pisspoor.
peace