Fierce Blogic

Ron Swanson!

Oct 19th, 2009

And now, let’s review last week’s Friday Challenge.

Here’s the argument:

Columnist: While it is undeniably true that NBC’s new Parks and Recreation is full of hilarious hijinks and madcap fun, it is destined to remain second to The Office in overall quality of writing, character development, and viewership. After all, Parks relies too heavily on zanily improbable one-liners. Thus, it will likely run out of comedic steam within the next few seasons.

Which of the following best expresses the main point of the columnist’s argument?

As always, let’s take a moment and answer this question before we head into answer choices. At the end of the day, this argument makes a comparative prediction; every piece of information in the passage exists to lead to the conclusion that Parks and Recreation “is destined to remain second to The Office.” Notice the lame attempt at misdirection in the final sentence with the conclusory word “thus” – look, if you’ve been asked to identify the main conclusion of an argument, how likely do you think it is that the test writers will telegraph that conclusion with words like “thus” or “therefore?” Right. The last sentence is a trap for the feeble. Not for us.

OK, now the only thing left is to find the answer choice that matches our answer: Parks and Recreation will not surpass The Office in quality or ratings.

(A) Parks and Recreation is zany and madcap.

True (Ron Swanson!), but this is offered as a concession before the comparison; it doesn’t match our answer and it’s not the conclusion of the argument.

(B) Parks and Recreation will likely go off the air within a few seasons.

Wha? Nobody said anything about that. This answer is typical, though; it takes the theme of the argument and then runs waaaay on down the field with it.

The author said this. Right after the word “thus,” in fact. Which is why this answer choice is here, but this is not the main conclusion. That PNR will likely be less funny in the future is part of the reasoning behind the main conclusion, and is therefore not itself the main conclusion.

(D) The Office will likely continue to have greater quality and more popular support than Parks and Recreation.

Our answer. Note the close match (in paraphrase) to our pre-stated answer. Bitchin’.

(E) The Office does not rely on zanily improbable one-liners.

Your mom does not rely on zanily improbable one-liners. Dang.

And that, my friends, is that.

Have a great week.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: logical reasoning · main conclusion · Ron Swanson

Hilarious Hijinks and Madcap Fun

Oct 16th, 2009

by Dave.

1 comment

This week’s Friday Challenge. Enjoy!

Which of the following best expresses the main point of the columnist’s argument?

It's good to be king. Also, I'm not wearing pants.

Suck it, Michael Scott!

(A) Parks and Recreation is zany and madcap.

(B) Parks and Recreation will likely go off the air within a few seasons.

(D) The Office will likely continue to have greater quality and more popular support than Parks and Recreation.

(E) The Office does not rely on zanily improbable one-liners.

As always, we’ll discuss answer choices on Monday.

Have a great weekend.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: logical reasoning · main conclusion · Parks and Recreation · The Office

Loud Shouts of Little Sense

Oct 14th, 2009

by Dave.

1 comment

Evidently, there’s nothing quite like illogic and fear-mongering and distrust to bring the people together.

And no, I’m not talking about Congress. I’m talking about swine flu. Well, not even swine flu, per se, but the vaccine against swine flu. Both ends of the political spectrum are jumping into arguments, fists swinging madly, mangling logic, reason, and common courtesy with loud shouts of little sense.

From the right, Rush Limbaugh committed the classical Ad Hominem flaw by declaring his reasons for declining the H1N1 vaccination: “Screw you, [HHS Secretary] Sebelius,” he said. “I’m not going to take it precisely because you’re now telling me I must.”

Uh, that’s stupid. There may be good reasons not to take the vaccine, but spite isn’t one of them. Any argument that depends upon the character or characteristics of the person against whom the argument is made is a failure. But we’ve learned not to expect much logic from these quarters.

And representing the left, we have Ace Ventura Jim Carrey (really), just raking in the big points for flaws in an article for The Huffington Post. He commits the Analogy Error (comparing vaccines to cigarettes), the Absence of Evidence Flaw (arguing that since he finds present tests insufficient proof of the vaccine’s safety, that the vaccine isn’t safe. If you accept his premise that the evidence for their safety is thin, then we can conclude that, er, the evidence is thin. We cannot argue, as Mr. Carrey did, that this thinness indicates that the vaccine is bad), the Ad Hominem Attack (questioning the legitimacy of the studies because their chief proponents have “close working relationships” with the vaccine’s makers; this relationship does not entail that the studies are flawed. To imply that it does is like saying that since Hitler was such a bad guy he must also have been a poor speller. To impugn the studies, you’d need evidence about the studies, not about their authors or their backers), and rounds it off with a bit of Equivocation (“surely there’s a limit as to how many viruses and toxins can be introduced into the body of a small child,” he writes, where “viruses and toxins” take the place of the word “vaccine.” Yes, a vaccine must, by its very nature, contain the virus against which it is meant to protect. But to allow the language to shift in such a way as to make it sound as though these doctors are out to poison our children is not a logical argumentative strategy. It’s a misleading emotional appeal).

There are, I’m sure, compelling arguments against vaccinating against swine flu. They’re just not coming from the poles (even though, this being a special case and all, here they’ve managed to align themselves as allies in egregious error).

Bonus points to the first to reply with more errors from the Carrey article, or from this collection of gems on the same subject.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: absence of evidence · ad hominem · analogy assumptions · equivocation · Jim Carrey · Rush Limbaugh

Child, Blocks, Cabinet, Questions.

Oct 12th, 2009

by Dave.

4 comments

For the answer to Friday’s Challenge, let’s take a look at the game reprinted here, followed by detailed explanations for all of the moves shown below.

Blocks Game

You’ll see that I’ve symbolized each rule individually, then combined them. It’s in this combination that I get the most mileage out of my rules – as we’ll see, many of the questions can be answered simply by counting the things ahead of or behind any given element within our chain. Also, note that only G or M could be the first block put in; every other block has at least one block ahead of it.

Now, the questions.

Number 1 is our accounting question.

(A) I is not after G. Get rid of it.

(B) J is not before F. Wrong.

(D) G is after K. Out of here.

That leaves us with only (E).

Number 2 lets us use that chain of rules:

(A) L must have at least 3 blocks ahead.

(B) G must have 6 blocks behind.

(D) Sure; why not?

(E) Nope – J must have 3 blocks after it.

Number 3 puts M 7^th, which means F is last and G must be first (nothing else could be first).

(A) G is first.

(B) Use your list – I must have J, L, H, and in this question also M and F behind it; therefore, it cannot be any later than 3^rd.

(D) J could not be that late under any circumstances.

(E) No – F must be last if M is 7^th.

Question 4. Place I in 4^th, then use that chain – J must be after I, with L, H, and F after it. That means it must be 5^th. G, K, and M must then appear in some order in the first 3 spaces.

(A) Could be, but doesn’t have to be.

(B) Could be, but again doesn’t have to be.

(D) Yep; this is what we knew to be true.

(E) Mebbe. Then again, mebbe not.

Question 5 gives us F in 5^th and asks what must be false. Lots of wiggle room, but K, L, and H must be the three blocks after F (everything else has to come before it, via our chain of rules), with G, I, and J in that order, and M somewhere in those first 4 slots.

(A) M could be first, followed by G, I, and J.

(B) Or you could have G, I, J, M.

(D) Nope. K is 6^th, 7^th, or 8^th. No way is K 4^th.

(E) L could be any of the last 3 blocks.

Question 6 has J somewhere before M. Two ways we can deal with this; run through answer choices with this modification to our chain, or else plot what we know in our diagram. I’ll walk through the latter (you can do the former on your own, kiddo). If M is after J, then J has almost everyone behind it – G and I must be ahead of it, and maybe K is also. If those three blocks are ahead, J must be 4^th, with M, F, L, and H in some order after it. If K is behind J, then J must be third, with G and I in 1 and 2 respectively, and the other 5 blocks behind in some order.

(A) Nope. G is 1^st either way.

(B) Unh-uh. I is 2^nd or 3^rd.

(D) Nope; we’ve already shown that J is either 3^rd or 4^th.

(E) Sure; why not?

And you see? This is why we call them Games.

See you Wednesday.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.

The Child and Her Blocks

Oct 9th, 2009

by Dave.

4 comments

For this week’s Friday Challenge, I give you a game:

A child is organizing her playroom, and will put a series of blocks, each bearing one of the following eight letters – F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M – into a cabinet one at a time in accordance with the following conditions:

J is put in at some time before both L and F

F is put in at some time after M

I is put in at some time before J but at some time after G

H is put in at some time after J

G is put in at some time before K

Which one of the following could be the order, from first to last, in which the blocks are put into the cabinet?

(A) I, M, J, G, K, L, H, F

(B) M, G, K, F, I, J, L, H

(D) M, K, G, I, J, L, F, H

(E) G, K, I, J, M, H, L, F

2. Which one of the following could be true?

(A) L is the second block to be put in the cabinet

(B) G is the third block to be put in the cabinet

(D) H is the fifth block to be put in the cabinet

(E) J is the sixth block to be put in the cabinet

3. If M is the seventh block to be put in the cabinet, then which one of the following could be true?

(A) G is the second block to be put in the cabinet

(B) I is the fourth block to be put in the cabinet

(D) J is the sixth block to be put in the cabinet

(E) L is the eighth block to be put in the cabinet

4. If I is the fourth block to be put in the cabinet, then which one of the following must be true?

(A) G is the first block to be put in the cabinet

(B) M is the second block to be put in the cabinet

(D) J is the fifth block to be put in the cabinet

(E) L is the seventh block to be put in the cabinet

5. If F is the fifth block to be put in the cabinet, then each of the following could be true EXCEPT:

(A) M is the first block to be put in the cabinet

(B) I is the second block to be put in the cabinet

(D) K is the fourth block to be put in the cabinet

(E) L is the sixth block to be put in the cabinet

6. If J is put in the cabinet at some time before M is, then which one of the following could be true?

(A) G is the second block to be put in the cabinet

(B) I is the fourth block to be put in the cabinet

(D) J is the fifth block to be put in the cabinet

(E) M is the sixth block to be put in the cabinet

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: Games

I Really Won’t Miss Him, Though

Oct 7th, 2009

by Dave.

No comments yet

After this week, I’m declaring Glenn Beck officially off-limits for this space. True, this will mean denying myself a rich vein of his illogic, almost-thoughts, foolishness, fear-mongering, half-comprehended ideas and mangled English sentences to write about, but I just can’t take it anymore. I mean, really, it’s just too easy with this clown (apparently, if you’re kind of pudgy and really bad at thinking, that’s good enough for Fox News). I’m going to go soft if I write anything else about him. Also, I might vomit.

So, for the last time, I offer this week’s BAFMELE to Glenn Beck, this time for having confused President Obama’s special-appointment counselors with Russian overlords who want to “fundamentally transform the nation and feast on the republic” (hey, it’s an easy mistake to make – they’re both called “czars,” after all. It’s kind of like how we’ve all made the mistake of drinking just right out of the toilet bowl – after all, the stuff in there is called “water,” just like the stuff that comes out of the tap. Who could blame us – or Glenn Beck – for experiencing confusion on such a confusing issue?), and also for presenting us with a perfectly-executed False Choice Flaw on the meaning of Mr. Obama’s czars.

Here’s Beck’s position on the matter:

“There are three ways, I want to talk to you about three different options here. Hang on, let me just run them down because I’m riddled with ADD and I don’t want to forget them. And ‑‑ okay, I got it. The first option with these czars is they’re a collection of stupid people.

The second thing is that this is ‑‑ we are developing a Chicago‑like system in our republic that we are developing a system here that is going to be just dirty, underhanded, and Chicago politics.

The third is really on the road to crazy town and that is a lot of these people are evil people that just have no respect for the republic in any way, shape or form and are going to fundamentally transform the nation and feast on the republic until they have an emergency that they just don’t want to, they just don’t want to waste and they will have all of the pieces that they need to start some engine of something we don’t want to see started up. Which is it you think?”

Well, that’s very insightful, Glenn, except that maybe there aren’t only three ways of looking at this. Instead of itemizing the other possibilities for the meaning of these czars, let’s simply adopt a little of that chubby Beck illogic for ourselves. Like this:

There are three possibilities that will explain Glenn Beck. Here, presented in descending order of likelihood, are those three options:

He’s not actually a human being. He’s a portly and incredibly sophisticated Turing machine. We really shouldn’t hold him in too low regard – he’s been programmed this way.
He’s a dimwit. A round, dimpled dimwit who is too laughably absurd to be taken seriously.
He is really on the road to crazy town and is one of these evil people that just have no respect for the republic in any way, shape or form and are going to fundamentally transform the nation and feast on the republic until they have an emergency that they just don’t want to, they just don’t want to waste and they will have all of the pieces that they need to start some engine of something we don’t want to see started up.

Which is it you think?

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: BAFMELE · False Choice · Glenn Beck

(Don’t!) Free Roman!

Sep 30th, 2009

by Dave.

3 comments

It’s not like we really ever looked to Hollywood for reason or insight, but, like, wow. Today, 138 people in the film industry signed a petition “demanding” the release of Roman Polanski, the film director who was arrested yesterday in Switzerland because in 1977 he was charged with drugging and raping a 13 year old girl, so he fled the US. At the time of the alleged rape, Polanski was 43.

Here’s my favorite part of the petition: “The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance … opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.”

Ooh – they’re right! Who could possibly know what might happen next? This arrest might mean that literally anyone who’s been charged with a felony and then flees to another country to avoid prosecution may have to eventually suffer the indignity of being arrested. By police. After that, what’s next? Why, absolutely anything could happen. People charged with drugging and then sodomizing 13-year-olds could conceivably begin to be forced to endure the social and aesthetic trauma of legal hearings! There could be jury trials! When will the madness end? I don’t know, but 138 filmmakers (including Woody Allen. Hm. That’s weird. Didn’t he have an affair with – and then marry – his adopted daughter? What a weird coincidence that his name appears here… Hmmm.) are pretty sure it might be awful if Polanski doesn’t get freed, and they mean, like, right now.

But back to my favorite part of the petition. The problem, according to these birthers filmmakers, is that Polanski was arrested in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance. See? They can’t arrest him – he already totally assumed that they couldn’t. And by God, if that’s not enough to insure that a (possibly) guilty man isn’t arrested in a free country, well, it’s just really hard to know what would be. So, let’s just make this our go-to defense. Next time you’re in, say, a supermarket, try it out!

“What, officer? These foodstuffs are all just sitting on display, unchained and totally not shackled in any way that might suggest that they are not mine for the taking. I assumed that I could have them. So I can. Have them. Right, officer?”

Another place this line of reasoning would be certain to win you good results is in a fight with your spouse. Or with your boss! Literally anywhere, under any circumstances, will this tactic be sure to work for you.

So, for giving us what I will hereafter refer to as “The Assumption Defense,” I am hereby humbled and appalled to award this week’s BAFMELE to the 138 signatories to the “Free Roman Polanski” petition. Enjoy it in good health, you heroes of the downtrodden. I just really hope that none of you have daughters (except, of course, Woody Allen, who as we know, does).

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: assumptions · BAFMELE · Birthiness · Roman Polanski

Whiskey, Vodka, Rum, Tequila.

Sep 28th, 2009

by Dave.

1 comment

Now, the answer to last week’s Friday Challenge.

First, let’s recap: We’ve got 12 identical-looking steel balls (yes we do), exactly one of which is either slightly heavier or else slightly lighter than the other 11 identical balls. We’ve got only a balance scale and our wits, and we need to find out which ball is odd and whether it is lighter or heavier than the rest in only 4 uses of the scale.

Here’s how:

First, divide your balls into 4 groups of equal size. We’ll name our four groups Whiskey, Vodka, Rum, and Tequila. The odd ball must be in one of those 4 groups, so let’s examine the 4 different possibilities, and your method of addressing each. Remember that we don’t know when we begin any of these scenarios where the odd ball is; we’ll begin methodically, as follows:

If the Odd Ball Were In the Tequila Group:

Weighing 1:

Weigh the entire Whiskey group against the Vodka group. If they weigh the same, you know that those six balls are all standard, and that the odd ball is in either Rum or Tequila. Let’s find out which group it’s in:

Weighing 2:

Keep Whiskey on the scale, and weigh it against the Rum group. If they weigh the same, the odd ball must be in the Tequila group. Let’s now find out if it’s heavier or lighter:

Weighing 3:

Keep Whiskey on the scale, and weigh it against the Tequila group. Now you know whether the odd ball in the Tequila group is heavier or lighter than the others. Now let’s find out which ball it is:

Weighing 4:

Weigh one randomly selected ball from the Tequila group against another. If the two balls weigh the same, you’ll know the Tequila ball you didn’t weigh is the odd one (and you already know from Weighing 3 whether it is light or heavy). If they’re different, then obviously you know that the odd ball is the one that is lighter or heavier (again, as determined in Weighing 3). Done.

If the Odd Ball Were In the Rum Group:

Weighing 1:

Weighing 2:

Keep Whiskey on the scale, and weigh it against the Rum group. If they are different, then Rum contains the odd ball, and you now know whether it is heavier or lighter than the standard balls in the Whiskey group. Now, let’s find out which ball is odd:

Weighing 3:

Weigh one randomly selected ball from the Rum group against another. If the two balls weigh the same, you’ll know the Rum ball you didn’t weigh is the odd one (and you already know from Weighing 2 whether it is light or heavy). If they’re different, then obviously you know that the odd ball is the one that is lighter or heavier (again, as determined in Weighing 2). Done.

If the Odd Ball Were In the Vodka Group:

Weighing 1:

Weigh the entire Whiskey group against the Vodka group. If they are different, you know that the odd ball is in either Whiskey or Vodka (and that all six balls in Rum and Tequila are standard), but not yet whether the odd ball is heavy or light. Let’s find out:

Weighing 2:

Keep Whiskey on the scale, and weigh it against the Rum group. If they weigh the same, the odd ball must be in the Vodka group, and you know from Weighing 1 whether the odd Vodka group was heavier or lighter than the standard Whiskey group.

Weighing 3:

Weigh one randomly selected ball from the Vodka group against another. If the two balls weigh the same, you’ll know the Vodka ball you didn’t weigh is the odd one (and you already know from Weighing 2 whether it is light or heavy). If they’re different, then obviously you know that the odd ball is the one that is lighter or heavier (again, as determined in Weighing 2). Done.

If the Odd Ball Were In the Whiskey Group:

Weighing 1:

Weighing 2:

Keep Whiskey on the scale, and weigh it against the Rum group. If they are different, the odd ball must be in the Whiskey group, and you know from Weighing 1 whether the odd Whiskey group was heavier or lighter than the standard Vodka group.

Weighing 3:

Weigh one randomly selected ball from the Whiskey group against another. If the two balls weigh the same, you’ll know the Whiskey ball you didn’t weigh is the odd one (and you already know from Weighing 2 whether it is light or heavy). If they’re different, then obviously you know that the odd ball is the one that is lighter or heavier (again, as determined in Weighing 2). Done.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.

September 09 LSAT, Reviewed

Sep 28th, 2009

by Dave.

1 comment

Well. That was… fun.

What a day Test Day is, huh? If you’re anything like us, you found Saturday exhilarating and exhausting and exciting and lots of other stuff beginning with ex. Now, we understand that you didn’t ask, but since we took the test this weekend (some of us looking for that elusive third perfect score), we thought we’d share our feelings with you.

Er, scratch that. As many of you know, we don’t actually come equipped with feelings. Here instead are our thoughts:

We began the day like any other, with our customary early-morning knife fight with opponents chosen for their dexterity and lethality, followed by the usual twenty-five minute rigorous tongue-lashing administered to the TV for refusing to show anything good at all (except, of course, for 30 Rock. And The Office). Since it was Test Day, we decided to forego the usual breakfast of “little punks like you,” and opted instead for a lighter morning repast of a nice egg-white omelet, eaten enthusiastically between growls of Test Day anger and immodest expressions of the treatment the LSAT was about to receive from us and our students, yelled at coma-inducing volume.

Then it was off to the test site, where we found the following to be true:

The September LSAT had a total of 101 scored questions—23 in Games, 26 in one Logical Reasoning section, 25 in the other Logical Reasoning section, and 27 in Reading Comprehension. Reports from September 2009 test takers indicate that the experimental section appeared in Section 1 or Section 3 on most forms, though at least one test form had the experimental section appear in Section 2. September test takers reported the following variations:

You may also have received a variant form not listed here.

Here’s the breakdown of how tprLSAT students rated individual sections in relation to their diagnostic exams:

Section Breakdown

Here’s some basic information about the sections. These breakdowns can be helpful in determining which sections were real and which was experimental.

Scored Games (23 questions)

The first game was a Simple Ordering game with six questions that involved ordering monuments by year, from 601-605. The second game, with six questions, was a Binary Grouping game assigning parents to a committee. The third game, with five questions, was a Multi-Tiered Ordering game (or Simple Ordering, if you used shapes to designate Domestic v. International) that mentioned two airlines, one with two planes and a second with three planes. The final game, with six questions, was another Binary Grouping game concerning the classes a student may take at school.

Scored Logical Reasoning (25 and 26 questions)

The scored Logical Reasoning section that had 26 questions began with a Necessary Assumption question about water usage. The other scored Logical Reasoning section, which had 25 questions, began with a Resolution question. Both sections had a typical mix of question types, with a slightly heavier-than-usual skewing toward Inference and Flaw questions.

Scored Reading Comprehension (27 questions)

The first passage discussed how archaeologists don’t have much information about ancient textile production but thankfully use new methods to really figure it all out. The second passage talked about how a Nigerian computer scientist figures out how to use smaller computers linked together through the “Internet” (which was, evidently, established before 1989. Who knew?) to solve complex problems using models found in nature. The third passage was about copyright law. It was, therefore, awesome and stuff. The fourth passage contained the Comparative Reading. Both passages discussed music’s psychological impact on humans.

Overall

We made the LSAT pay for its crimes. Our students who stuck to their attack plans and remembered to breathe generally did well and we are so proud (like mother ducks, we are).

You guys worked hard and you’ve earned your success. Now go have yourself a nice, cold, richly-deserved adult beverage.

Cheers,

Us at TPR LSAT.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: September 2009

24 Hours till Go-Time

Sep 25th, 2009

by Dave.

No comments yet

Wow! It’s go-time already. After months of study, the work you’ve put in is about to be rewarded; tomorrow, you will achieve the success you’ve earned, and our hats are off to you.

For today’s Friday Challenge, I’ll offer something to take your mind off the LSAT for a few minutes, before you get down to the serious business of kicking the crap out of this test.

Here we go:

At a science museum, there is an exhibit consisting of one balance scale and 12 identical-looking polished steel balls. A sign near the exhibit says this:

“These twelve balls look identical, and eleven of them are, but one of them weighs either more or less than all the others. Using only the balance scale, how can you find out which ball is different, and whether it is heavier or lighter than the others?”

A douche-y guy in an Ed Hardy shirt standing near the exhibit says “Easy. I’d take them to your mom’s house, son.”

The Last Logical Citizen of the United States rolls her eyes, punches Douchey McDoucherson in his tiny penis for good measure, and proceeds to determine which of the balls is different from the others, using only the balance scale and her wits.

The LLCotUS can make a determination in no more than four uses of the scale – how?

As always, I’ll provide the answer on Monday, along with a posting about the weekend’s test.

To those of you from my classes taking the LSAT tomorrow, sleep well tonight knowing that this weekend you’ll put the lid on. Leave no doubt and take no prisoners. Know that no matter what, I’ve got your back.

And for all of you who take the test this weekend, tell me about it – I want to know how you do, and I love talking about the LSAT.

We’ll talk again on Monday. Until then, be confident, think clearly, and reason soundly.

Posted in: Fierce Blogic.
Tagged: 12 balls · douchebags · Ed Hardy · LLCotUS

Fierce Blogic

Ron Swanson!

Hilarious Hijinks and Madcap Fun

Loud Shouts of Little Sense

Child, Blocks, Cabinet, Questions.

The Child and Her Blocks

I Really Won’t Miss Him, Though

(Don’t!) Free Roman!

Whiskey, Vodka, Rum, Tequila.

September 09 LSAT, Reviewed

24 Hours till Go-Time

Search

Links

Archives

Search

Links

Tags

Archives