Glenn Nall

i have come to see that there is some small confusion on the way the problem is described, so i've taken the problem statement from the other version to reemphasize. The problem is to decide which are the minimum cards that need to be turned over to prove that the conditional statement is true. (what this means is to prove it true OR false - by using the word prove, this is implied, but i think some have not considered it this way - below is the way it's worded in another version of the SAME test, posted earlier, but i'm reposting it here.) OR Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows a vowel on one face, then its opposite face is an EVEN number? these are the same challenges, just worded a little differently... hopefully this will clear up any ambiguity...

See, I told you that you were changing it in the middle of answering. First this is the statement: 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.' and you have now changed that to: "EVEN NUMBERS will ALWAYS be found on the other side of a VOWEL." That doesn't even come close to being the same thing. See that first sentence If it has .... then it has. NO, Ken. first of all, I haven't CHANGED anything as far as instructions or descriptions go. these are the same words that were used on the original site where the test is. and i haven't changed a letter. I've ONLY described to you what that statement MEANS, and you have some idea that it means something entirely different than what most othhers think it means. If it is raining then I will get wet MEANS that I WILL ALWAYS get wet IF IT IS RAINING. This is what has been established as a premise, a conditional statement, a given. it's what we're trying to prove or disprove. If I bang my knee then I will scream MEANS I WILL ALWAYS scream WHEN I bang my knee. If there's a vowel on a card, THEN there's an EVEN number on the other is the same thing as saying THERE WILL BE an even number on the other side of the card that shows a vowel. this is the statement we are trying to prove or disprove. If you turn the E and a an even number is present, then SO FAR, the statement is proven. If we turn the E and a 7, or a G, is there, then the statement is disproved. those are exactly the same statements.

If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side. If this is stated correctly, then you do not get to see what is on the other side of a card unless you see that it has a vowel on the side you are looking at . If a vowel, then you can look. No vowel, no lookee. this is what's so interesting. i'm not trying to be critical, i'm asking to learn and to help... From exactly where do you get this conclusion? "If this is stated correctly, then you do not get to see what is on the other side of a card unless you see that it has a vowel on the side you are looking at..."

some study material, with which you can get closer to the answer or blow your minds with heavy traffic. http://www.top-law-schools.com/conditional-reasoning.html

well put. good hint.

and not reading the question correctly is probably the single biggest mistake made, i'm seeing. I'm gonna bet that 'not stating the question correctly' is going to be the biggest mistake made. as i've said about FIVE times, Ken. i used the technology within my brand new Windows 10 to perform a COPY of the original text as is available on the website from whence this test came, and used the same technology to perform a PASTE function into the POST i created. This has the result of taking each letter of the original text and transferring it, in order, to the new document so that it, in all intents and purposes, save for some protons, probably, is identical to the original. I have been programming in multiple computer languages for about 12 years. People pay me to do this for them. one of the first things I learned, out of the womb, pretty much, was the art of copy and paste without screwing up the objects that i was wanting to move. My MOTHER can even copy and paste, and she can't even feed herself. (not strictly true, sorry mom). what diction and grammar is presented with the said question would have been the choice of its author. not mine. if, unlike the rest of the people who are gladly and harmoniously participating in this exercise, you feel that the question is trickery or otherwise poorly worded, bitch to the doctors who wrote it. I'll send you the links to their websites in a PM if you feel that it will help you arrive at the answer any better. would you like me to send the link to you? everyone else seems to be engaging and learning in this thing, and i don't want to cut it off by posting the answer.

The "K" could have a vowel on the other side. No it can't. Vowels have even numbers on the back side, not other letters. this is one of the errors that some people are making, and the point of the exercise: Vowels have even numbers on the back side, not other letters. the condition is simply this: if it's a vowel, then the other side is an even number. and nothing else. there is nothing that states, or implies, that: consonants cannot have an even number, or another consonant, or an odd number, or a naked - goat - on the other side. there is nothing that states, or implies, that: a person cannot turn over any card unless it shows X or until the "if" is satisfied. turning E over does one of two things: it proves the statement TRUE - SO FAR - if the other side is an EVEN #, --- OR --- it proves it false right away if there is NOT an EVEN number there. the mission is to prove the statement true or false with the least amount of turns with the given set of cards. so if you turn E and there's a 2, -> so far, the statement is true. if you turn K, then you have to ask yourself what is proven under the ensuing situation. if there's a 3, then what? if there's a 4, then what? if there's a Z, then what? if there's a nude goat, then what? so is it necessary to turn K? and so on and so forth...

A set of givens that we know: LHO was seen on 6 of TSBD a rifle registered to LHO was found on 6 the day the pres was shot. bullets SHELLS matching the RIFLE were found on the floor of 6. LHO left TSBD soon after the shooting I have never seen it proven that LHO had a rifle registered to him. that's right, technically. my assumption has been that it was registered in his name in formality only - but they didn't register rifles to persons' names back then, i don't think. so i was simplifying the terms for the sake of the exercise; it was assumed by "them" that the rifle was LHO's because it came to his mailbox. but, as you're pointing out, even if that were a logical conclusion, it doesn't show at all that he took the gun to work, or fired it, etc. which is part of the terms in that it's either a false assumption or a true one. In other words, i threw it in there for people to have to think about before they can leap to LHO firing the gun. this is how DVP and others are saying that it's obvious he did the shooting, because he takes a small given and makes it bigger than it is (and he/they doesn't/don't realize it) LHO was seen on 6 of TSBD - yes, but so what? a rifle registered to LHO was found on 6 the day the pres was shot. - yes, but so what?, or - maybe, but so what? bullets SHELLS matching the RIFLE were found on the floor of 6 - yes, but so what? LHO left TSBD soon after the shooting - yes, but so what? these are really not that good - this is really why i was trying to get someone to help come up with a better set of conditions with which this exercise can be seen realistically.

right, or even "if there are shells on the ground and the nearby gun is registered to Lee, then Lee fired the gun." a person is thinking, "he very probably fired the gun," and in most cases very probably works, but it is NOT "proven to the exclusion of all other possibilities that Lee fired the gun," and in something like a murder case, these two differences are as different as night and day. I'm surprised you haven't gotten the answer yet, Mark. but I haven't read the rest of the thread. i'm torn between providing the answer and the links to the tests, or throwing in some wrenches...

What a back-assward way to approach the evidence. Mark, it would be one thing for Pat Speer to declare that even with their own fraudulent evidence the WC conclusions are untenable -- but Pat insists the improperly prepared autopsy evidence is infallible! How many violations of autopsy protocol were involved in the BOH photo and the written-in-pen "measurements"? More than a half-dozen! Does it make sense to declare such evidence infallible when it is repeatedly contradicted by the physical evidence, the witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documents? Please explain the logic here, Mark, because I know Pat can't. Mark, this is another waste of air. You gave it an admirable attempt, but to no avail. He'll be insulting Pat's family next... don't waste your time.

All four cards have to be turned over. The "K" could have an even number on the other side, and the "7" could have a vowel on the other side. To only turn over the "E" and the "4" would be to make an assumption about the other two cards. Edit: I changed my answer from four cards to two, the "E" and the "4", after looking more closely at the conditions. Our statement is only establishing a relationship between vowels and even numbers, and says nothing about consonants and odd numbers. In other words, consonants and odd numbers can have anything they want on the reverse side, and it will not affect the stated condition. Edit: On the other hand, if the "K" had an even number on the reverse, or the "7" had a vowel on the reverse, that would tend to invalidate the statement. I think I will go with four again. almost, but not quite...

Terry, I owe you an apology - you may be correct in that the cards each contain both a letter and a number. another version of this test says this is the case, but this version doesn't. it doesn't matter, though. the answer is unaffected.

in fact, i think that it IS the case that each card contains both letter and number - in another version of this it so states. but this would not effect (affect?) the answer. if you turn over K, you learn the same thing regardless what's on the other side - even or odd, letter or number, it neither proves nor disproves the postulate.

good people - this is NOT MY test. I COPIED and PASTED the text into this thread, and I didn't change the answer in order to trick you. From Wikipedia (I redacted the names so that no one cheats, and so that i get to use the word 'redacted' in a sentence): "The [Doctor's Name Here] selection task (or four-card problem) is a logic puzzle devised by [Same Name Here] in 1966. It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning. An example of the puzzle is: You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red? (the problem stated in a different way) A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants). <<< ...that's this one... The importance of the experiment is not in justifying one answer of the ambiguous problem, but in demonstrating the inconsistency of applying the logical rules by the people when the problem is set in two different contexts but with very similar connection between the facts." read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

i'm back. first, i done forgot about that... second - you're trying too hard (this is a famous study done decades ago by a couple of professionals. Their answer is correct, and it makes total sense once you hear it.). read this again: The problem is SIMPLY to decide what are the minimum cards that need to be turned over to prove that the conditional statement is true. another way it's been put is from this other version of the test: You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a letter on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, M and O. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is a vowel?

hell, Mark, i didn't mean to contradict you - i agree with this premise - it's NOT proven, as far as i know, by anyone. only for the sake of trying to replicate this test did i use that scenario... maybe you can write a better one that will be a good example of how reason is used in this thing...?

one thing i've tried to do is write a replica of this test using variables available from the JFK files. it's not easy. "You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?" this is just a variant of the numbers and letters. it does state here, in fact, that each card will be one side alpha and the other numeric, as I think Robert decided, but i don't see as how that makes a difference in arriving at the solution (which has already been found in this thread, by the way). to JFK: A set of givens (what we know): LHO was seen on 6 of TSBD a rifle registered to LHO was found on 6 the day the pres was shot. bullets SHELLS matching the RIFLE were found on the floor of 6. LHO left TSBD soon after the shooting i tried to arrange these or something like these into a similar if then statement so as to THEN seek a LOGICAL conclusion of some kind or another. for instance: IF LHO was seen on 6 and the RIFLE was found on 6, THEN ... see, it's hard to establish a truth, since we are in fact working with a real case and real facts... how about: IF the SHELLS found on 6 match the RIFLE found on 6, THEN it is established that the SHELLS were FIRED in that RIFLE (now, technically one does not prove the next, so this works just like the RULE IF a VOWEL, then an EVEN number. it's given to us, so we can go with the SHELLS WERE FIRED from the RIFLE). and the puzzle: WHAT has to be shown to prove that LHO did or did NOT fire that RIFLE on that day...? i don't think that works too well as a replica of this puzzle, but it's good exercise thinking of these facets in these terms...

THAT's where i'm trying to get this to go - it's the whole purpose of this exercise, to exercise our decision-making in WHAT is a given and what is NOT... the sounding out of the parameters, of our reasoning, of what exactly is postulated and what is not... these are all helpful in understanding a piece of evidence. the question that is asked is what the existence of empty bullet shells on the floor alone expressly means, and NO MORE. what expressly can be derived from the existence of these shells and the existence of the rifle that IS registered to LHO (expressly, meaning EXACTLY and ONLY...?). adding suppositions only corrupts the evidence, and takes you to the incorrect answer, as is exemplified with this test.

Nope. You are making assumptions. Remember the examples? Let's say we are given the statement, "If it is raining, then I will get wet." It does NOT necessarily follow that " If I am wet, then it is raining." Just because ONE statement is true, it does NOT mean that the converse must also be true. And nowhere in the original statement does it say that even numbers are ONLY found on the reverse of cards with vowels. For all we know, even numbers might also be on the reverse of some cards with consonants. The "rule," as given to us, ONLY applied to vowels having even numbers on the reverse side. ANYTHING else we conclude is NOT supported by the original statement we are given. ANYTHING else we conclude is merely an assumption. Just because ONE statement is true, it does NOT mean that the converse must also be true. when put like that, we all say, "well, of COURSE!," but it's our tendency to do just this that makes this test tricky. i read Robert's input - it's amazing, we are all a bunch of higher than average, (some MUCH higher than average), intelligent people - and yet, the mistake that is being made is the simplest little thing...! From Wikipedia: "The _______ selection task (or four-card problem) is a logic puzzle devised by ______ _______ in 1966. It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning. An example of the puzzle is: You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red? A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants). <<< ...that's this one... The importance of the experiment is not in justifying one answer of the ambiguous problem, but in demonstrating the inconsistency of applying the logical rules by the people when the problem is set in two different contexts but with very similar connection between the facts."

yes, don't make assumptions - a good rule in any investigation, i'd assume ( ), is to not jump to any conclusions, no matter how small. yours will take you down the wrong road.

Zapruder's secretary testified that there was a young, black couple sitting on that bench right next to black dog man - why isn't it likely that it's one of those two? few people mention this possibility, so i'm thinking maybe her testimony is suspect? she said they were eating a lunch, and both took off running as the shots rang out. still, that figure is JUST next to the bench...

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer? Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess. in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it. i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT. i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it. it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it. i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you... If I'm wrong, it's not an honest question. I can already see that the answer is going to be that since there is a 4, the other side is a vowel. but that wasn't the question and the condition was 'if it is a vowel' then. 4 is not a vowel , so you don't get to see the other side. the REASON you're missing the whole idea is because you jumped to a conclusion from the very start that just isn't true. where did you get the idea that you are limited in which cards you can turn over? the instruction is simple and clear: choose the minimal # of cards that need to be turned over to show whether the postulate is true or false. that is exactly what it means, and everybody else read it correctly. so if you insist that it's worded wrong, go tell the masses. I understood it, and the man who got it right understood it, and the professionals who created it felt that it was worded properly. maybe they're wrong. want to email them?

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I take you are trying to excuse "these US Naval officers" for not knowing what they were doing, or else for having to follow procedures that were a joke. I would ask why the U.S.Navy would assign an autopsy of a president of the United States to people who didn't know what they were doing, or to require them to follow procedures that were a joke, or why the Navy would not know that its procedures were a joke. I happen to think that the Navy knew exactly what it was doing at Bethesda that night. . Sorry Ron. No way. First they did not normally do autopsys. They were 'doctors'. They were not allowed to publish there autopsy report/findings. The notes were burn, remember? Almost nothing they found was accepted. it was a total sham. Why were there so many people there? Why was the autopsy doctor not 'in charge'? They wanted the truth hidden, it was. We still do not have the 'truth'. I guess I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that the "doctors" knew exactly what they were doing. It was the Navy that assigned some doctors to do the autopsy. It was the Navy who then wouldn't let the doctors be in charge. It was the Navy that allowed a roomful of people. It was the Navy that wanted the truth hidden. Et cetera, et cetera. Again, the Navy knew exactly what it was doing. Right, Ron. knowing just how complicit each of the doctors were or weren't isn't really important because they very obviously had people above them who knew a lot more and clearly had more control. that medicolegal summary just makes it quite clear that procedures were dashed to the ground, by whomever's hand. and he follows it with how an autopsy should have been done, procedure by procedure. it's really interesting.

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer? Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess. in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it. i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT. i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it. it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it. i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you... ok, well, you're going to have to show me how it's not a trick question. If you have to have the answer to one question before you can even ask the 2nd and then you ask the 2nd without the answer to the first. I'll have to see that. I don't believe that i won't disagree with the answer if the answer is not one. I know you're going to say you have to turn the card with the number 4 on it to see if there is a vowel on the back. but you can't do that until you know that there 'is' a vowel on the front of the card. Anyhow, I can already tell I'm not going to agree with your answer because I can already tell you have the wrong answer. well, princess, you'll have to complain to A) the person who got the answer correct in the thread, and the creators of the puzzle. it's not MY answer because, as I said, I didn't create the damn thing. Wikipedia: "The _______ selection task (or four-card problem) is a logic puzzle devised by _______ _______ in 1966, (I know I said the early 70s because the website i first found this on said so). It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning. An example of the puzzle is: You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants)." Now, Ken, do you care to maintain that it is MY answer and that I got it wrong? (and NO, that's NOT what i'm going to say - you're pretty much wrong in the entire statement above.)

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer? Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess. in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it. i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT. i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it. it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it. i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you...