An illogical logic test

This was posted on the other forum a few days ago and has been running to multiple pages without much consensus on the correct answer.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?190507-A-Logic-Test

This logic 'test' is a famous one called the Wason Selection Task. There are many examples on the internet and for some reason most of them are re-worded by the poster to explain how it works. That makes it end up somewhat like the old experiment of whispering a statement to the first person in a line etc and seeing how close it matches the statement at the end of the line. The problem with this interpreted version is that the wording has morphed and become way too ambiguous for a proper test.

In the instructions the word 'test' is disputed as in, is 'test' the same as 'prove'? I don't think so.

Is 'idea' the same as 'rule'? I don't think so.

The above version leaves out a critical 'idea' (rule) which is that there is a letter on one side and a number on the other side of every card.

As the instructions stand above, I say only the #1 card has to be turned over. It is the only one to show a vowel on it's face and has to have an even number on the backside, or the 'idea' is incorrect. The other 3 cards could be blank on the back, turning them over would 'test' (prove) nothing if they were.

The incorrect, ambiguous wording screwed the test from the beginning, I'm not sure if there is a correct answer to the flawed question above.

This is the correct wording...

These instructions lead to one specific, correct answer without any polysemousness or tergiversation.

As posted by the OP on the other site...

which meant to post what you thought the answer was and how you arrived at that conclusion, but not to google up the officially correct answer and post that.

Only 4% got it right in real tests on the general public.

 

The answer might be a bit disbutable. Logic says we must check cards one and two, quantum logic only card one..

 

Thou it's not in the rules opposite faces must have a number paired with a letter in which case we have to check all cards, except quantum logic which still requires only to check card one..

 

I agree with the Gollywobbler. Cards 1 & 2 (assuming number-letter pairing).

 

I looked up quantum logic and cannot understand what is said. Is there a very simple 'laymens' type explanation?

 

is the rule 'generic,' or does it only apply to these 4 cards?

turning over card 1 and finding an even number supports the idea if generic, proves the rule if only these 4 cards, finding an odd number disproves it.

the result of turning over any other card is probably irrelevant:

a consonant can have an even or odd number on the back and the rule/idea stands.

an even number can have a vowel or consonant on the other side and therule/ idea stands

turning over an odd number might reveal a vowel or a consonant; if it reveals a consonant then the rule is neither proven or disproven, so turning over an odd number may or may not provide an answer/support to the rule/idea.

 

I might be stupid ( quite likely) but it looks like cards 1 & 4 to me, they are the only ones that can possibly have a vowel in conjunction with an even number, they are already half way home on what we can see, the other two are already disqualified from meeting the twin conditions by having an odd number and a consonant, which are not what we are testing for, so no point in going further with them. I think both 1 & 4 need to be flipped, not just 1, which may have an even number on the other side, but card 4 may not have a vowel. If both those cards meet the rule, I can't see what else remains to be shown, if we are talking about a "set" of just these 4 cards.

 

It's not a logic test, it's a semantics test, and a fine one at that. It relies on the terrible lack of grammatical aspect identifiers in English, and carefully avoids the required lexical aspect identifiers needed to be unambiguous. How you choose to read show determines your answer.

As long as there is no distinction between top and bottom faces WRT one face and its opposite, then you should turn them all over. This is the same as saying that show applies to present and all future permutations of card flips (Show having a continuous aspect, imperfective).

Or you could decide that show only means right now. In that aspect, only the first card is showing a vowel, so only the first card needs tested. (Show having an aspect of the present instance, perfective).

<<edit>> Ok, so now I read that there is a "correct wording" that actually is a logic test.


You flip a card only if there is a possibility that doing so will reveal the rule to be violated. Each card has two possibilities on its reverse side. Assume each in turn and note the results vs the rule.

 

I've changed my mind, you need to flip all cards, imo.

 

It's actually two different 'tests' , depending on which set of instructions you follow.

As a logic test, that reminds me of "English As she Is Spoke"

http://splitsider.com/2011/04/the-accidental-comedy-masterpiece-mark-twain-called-perfect/

You shouldn't have to assume anything, you just follow the instructions, but it's so vaguely worded, I'm not sure there is a correct answer. On the other forum, it has gone to 400 posts and there is still no agreement on the answer.

I think this one is what the first one was trying to say...

 

I have changed my mind yet again. I promise this is the last time ! All cards except #3 to be flipped. It has a consonant, so what is on the other side does not matter. #2 could have a vowel on the flip side, so would violate the vowel/even requirement. #1 needs to be flipped to reveal an even mumber, or fail, and #4 needs to be flipped to reveal a vowel, or the rule is false.

 

If number 4 has a consonant, how is the rule false?

 

Of course, you are correct. This must be my eleventh guess, but it looks like it is 1 & 2 only !

 

Schrödinger's cat is the right wording for a search. As long as you don't look the reverse face cannot be anything real or it's everything in the same time.

 

Hmm...this sounds like I don't have to do anything, I can just sit here and create my own reality. I'm liking this idea.

Seriously though, I have a hard time seeing where a theory like that can be useful, although it must be.

Pertaining to the first set of instructions, a guy on the other forum said he didn't have to turn over any cards, as he had faith they were all correct. Is that quantum logic? I believe he was going for the religious angle. (Wikipedia describes quantum as "In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction." 'Doing nothing' sounds like it applies.)

Another person said to turn them all over, his reasoning was how hard can that be and what else do you have to do? That must be Git R Dun logic.