Hey, if you're going to be pedantic, you need to go all the way with it. :P
No, that isn't pedantic, that is word mincing and winning by definition. You are warping the idea of what married means within the context of the puzzle to prove some ridiculous point that goes counter to common sense. Remember, you can make valid logical arguments that are untrue. You are striving for validity over truth and using a fallacy to get you there.
Remember, you can make valid logical arguments that are untrue. You are striving for validity over truth and using a fallacy to get you there.
Yes, but if we're talking about a logic puzzle, you have to use that sort of reasoning in order to complete it. Also, "mincing words and winning by definition" is what it means to be pedantic in an argument. I'm overly concerned with minute details; in this case, I'm arguing about uncommon applications of words. The thing is, again, you have to do that with logic puzzles. The point is also not ridiculous; if this is to be a logic puzzle, then the wording is not sufficiently specific for the answer given, and I'm merely adding more evidence to the pile.
The sea is in fact the sailor's mistress, therefore they cannot be married.
There are many "mistresses" who are married.
See, NOW I'm warping definitions and applying them in ridiculous ways. :P
Your grasping at straws technique and reaching beyond the framework of the given puzzle is precisely not how you are meant to approach these puzzles. For better or ill, this sort of creative reasoning is not at all what these puzzles are for. These puzzles are to test the person's ability to break the puzzle down to a p and q if/then argument. While I agree that the framework is not as specific as it could be and certainly not in the best format, to assume that Anna is a purple giraffe from a fictional novel is simply insane.
Also
"pe⋅dan⋅tic /pəˈdæntɪk/[puh-dan-tik] –adjective \ 1. ostentatious in one's learning. 2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching."
Being concerned with minute details and MAKING UP minute details are two very different things.
You're lucky Anne is fictional. I would be offended, if I was her.
There is a difference between being fictional and being a fictional within a fictional scenario (i.e. the character of in a novel that a character in an actual novel is reading).
While I agree that the framework is not as specific as it could be and certainly not in the best format, to assume that Anna is a purple giraffe from a fictional novel is simply insane.
I'm not arguing that Anna is or is not a person, nor am I arguing that she is or is not "married" in a different context than how it is typically used. I am arguing that, as a logic puzzle, it is poorly worded. I'm not trying to argue that the answer should be "C," only that, when taken as a true logic puzzle, that answer could easily be reached and is valid. Note:
So the problem should include these two stipulations: "All persons are either married or unmarried" and "Jack, George, and Anne are all persons." Then, it's a valid logic puzzle. That's what I read into the problem, but I also didn't read it as a true logic puzzle.
I knew how the puzzle was intended to be read, because I elected not to read it as a true logic puzzle. I assumed that 1) Anne, Jack, and George are all people and that 2) a person can only be married or unmarried.
While you can't assume that Anne is a purple giraffe, or that Jack is "married" to the sea, you also cannot assume that they're actually people who are capable of being married, because you are not given that information. That's why you can't read it as a logic puzzle.
Honestly, the first time I read it, I thought, "Well, Anne could be a dog, so if they mean 'married people' the way we use it conventionally..." The ambiguity there results in "C" being a valid choice.
While you can't assume that Anne is a purple giraffe, or that Jack is "married" to the sea, youalsocannot assume that they're actually people who are capable of being married, because you are not given that information. That's why you can't read it as a logic puzzle.
Being that the framework of the puzzle clearly implies (though it should have outright stated using the model of: 1) Informative Statement, 2) Informative Statement, etc. and ?) that the entities can be married either married or unmarried.
While you can't assume that Anne is a purple giraffe, or that Jack is "married" to the sea, youalsocannot assume that they're actually people who are capable of being married, because you are not given that information. That's why you can't read it as a logic puzzle.
That's not the problem. Even if only people can be married, an entity is still either married or unmarried (though if it's married it must be a person). The problem is that an unmarried entity is not necessarily an unmarried person, as required for the puzzle. The fact that they have names doesn't mean anything either - plenty of named entities are not persons.
What Kate is doing is assuming that, based on the intent of the puzzle creator, Anne, Jack and George were meant to be people. However, this kind of thing is a big no-no in a logic puzzle. You should not need to read any more into the puzzle than what is said, or it is a bad logic puzzle.
I do, however, continue to assert that unmarried and married are mutually exclusive by definition so that issue never needed clarification in the first place.
While you can't assume that Anne is a purple giraffe, or that Jack is "married" to the sea, youalsocannot assume that they're actually people who are capable of being married, because you are not given that information. That's why you can't read it as a logic puzzle.
Being that the framework of the puzzle clearly implies (though it should have outright stated using the model of: 1) Informative Statement, 2) Informative Statement, etc. and ?) that the entities can be married either married or unmarried.
Well, it definitely implies that Jack and George can be married, so that's valid. It says nothing about whether or not Anne can be married though. So, if we're using the most common definition of "marriage," and assuming we're not talking about human-animal marriages, then you can deduce that Jack and George are people.
The problem is that you have to make a lot of assumptions to make the answer work, at least the way it's worded. I agree, it needed to be worded as a list of statements of fact, followed by a conclusion. Something like:
Assume the following to be true: -Jack, George, and Anne are all people. -People can either be Married (M) or Unmarried (U) -Jack is married; George is unmarried -Jack is looking at Anne; Anne is looking at George
Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
EDIT: My statement that Kate quoted needed to be clearer. I was saying that the puzzle doesn't specify that anyone is actually a person. Again, if we assume that "married" necessitates having persons, then we can conclude that Jack and George are people. The same cannot be said for Anne.
So the problem should include these two stipulations: "All persons are either married or unmarried" and "Jack, George, and Anne are all persons." Then, it's a valid logic puzzle. That's what I read into the problem, but I also didn't read it as a true logic puzzle.
I knew how the puzzle was intended to be read, because I elected not to read it as a true logic puzzle. I assumed that 1) Anne, Jack, and George are all people and that 2) a person can only be married or unmarried.
I am curious about these statements. Must we assume your 1 & 2 above?[1]
1) Why would it make any difference if Jack, Anne, and George are not people? Let's assume they are rocks, so what?
2) What third state could there be between 'married' and 'unmarried', however 'married' is defined?
[1] NB:I also assumed WhaleShark's1 and 2 when I read the problem for the first time
Edit: (on my 2) Well, there is an assumption required: that 'married' is a binary state.
Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
A) Yes. No. C) Cannot be determined.
Well, it definitely implies that Jack and George can be married, so that's valid. It says nothing about whether or not Anne can be married though. So, if we're using the most common definition of "marriage," and assuming we're not talking about human-animal marriages, then you can deduce that Jack and George are people.
I disagree. It doesn't imply that George can be married at all - by the most sensible definition of "unmarried" (i.e. as the logical negation of being "married"), everything that isn't a person must be unmarried.
married -> person implies that (since it is the contrapositive) ~person -> ~married
In English - if all marriages are between people, then all non-people are unmarried.
All that needs to be changed in the problem is one word.
Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried personentity?
Again, I agree that the form of the question is not ideal; however, the absurd level of technicality you are pushing for genuinely goes beyond the framework of the question.
I disagree. It doesn't imply that George can be married at all - by the most sensible definition of "unmarried" (i.e. as the logical negation of being "married"), everything that isn't a person must be unmarried.
Ah, good point. Hadn't thought of it that way. So, with the wording presented, we cannot be sure if Anne and George are in fact persons or not. Of course, you only need to call into question whether or not Anne is a person; the fact that George is also ambiguous just adds to the pile.
Do you agree that my statement of the problem is sufficient, Pete?
Mostly. We still have to assume that marriage is a binary state, and that marriage precludes non-people, but I'm willing to go with those assumptions since they're reasonable ones. Technically, though, you should specify that marriage is a binary state and that non-people cannot be married.
Depending on the definition of the word "married," we can very easily have non-people entities which are married, i.e. sailor and the sea, or the "marriage" of two ideas. There is also the possibility of a third state that is related but neither marriage nor unmarriage, such as the civil union.
Simply because Jack is "married" under one sense of the word does not necessarily mean that George is "unmarried" in the sense of the negation of Jack's state. The terminology could be used inconsistently in the problem. So, total clarity requires defining marriage as a binary state which precludes non-persons.
If we go with your statement and the assumptions I've outlined, we have Jack (M) ----> Anne (?) and Anne(?) ----> George (U). In this case, whether or not Anne is a person is irrelevant, and we will always have a married person looking at an unmarried entity.
however, the absurd level of technicality you are pushing for genuinely goes beyond the framework of the question.
Anne's status as a person is well within the framework of the question. It's never specified, and the question specifically inquires about married persons. This level of technicality is necessary, particularly in very critical applications like the sciences.
I agree that the framework is vague and flawed; however, in answeing this particular logic puzzle, it is CLEARLY implied that Anne is a person. This is NOT a lab, nor a scenario for "creative thinking". This is a logic puzzle. It is a silly game used to build up skills that can be applied elsewhere. The rules of the game is the framework of the question. Do you quibble because board games do not accurately represent the scenarios presented in their themes? It is equally absurd to argue the clear implication within the framework of this logic puzzle.
Why can't you guys just do puzzles like normal people?
Puzzles as simple as this one get boring pretty quickly, and it's a lot more fun to attempt to view the problem in a different light. I also have an exam to avoid studying for right now.
Do you quibble because board games do not accurately represent the scenarios presented in their themes?
Um, yes?
It is equally absurd to argue the clear implication within the framework of this logic puzzle.
I've done many, many logic puzzles of this sort where making such an innocuous assumption leads to an incorrect answer. I've also made mistakes in real life where I assumed that something was so obvious that I didn't bother to convey it, and it's bitten me in the ass as a result. Again I reference the story:
"Pete, I can't get your procedure to work." "Did you read all the directions before proceeding?" "No. I did X and Y happened." "The very next sentence tells you not to do X, and what to do in the even that you do." "Oh."
As I keep saying, WE AGREE. That particular "puzzle" was poorly worded and a case (however lame and pointless it is) can be made that C is somewhat valid. HOWEVER, you are just getting silly at this point.
1) Why would it make any difference if Jack, Anne, and George are not people? Let's assume they are rocks, so what?
Because the question asks very specifically "Is a marriedpersonlooking at an unmarriedperson?"
OK, granted. That'll teach me to read more closely. I suppose the actual words don't really even require the married or unmarried people to be drawn from the set {Anne, Jack, George}. It could be that Anne and George are mice, and Jaques (human, married) is looking at Ralph (human, unmarried) over behind them. Surely somewhere a married person is looking at an unmarried person.
Makes the puzzle rather uninteresting...
2) What third state could there be between 'married' and 'unmarried', however 'married' is defined?
I'm not actually sure, but since the problem didn't specify, I can't assume that to be the case.
If we figure that 'married' is some sort of continuum, I suppose. Is there a definition like that in common (or uncommon) use?
If we figure that 'married' is some sort of continuum, I suppose. Is there a definition like that in common (or uncommon) use?
There are different specific instances of marriage. The problem with using the "common" definition is that it's a matter of debate. Some people consider "civil unions" to be functionally identical to marriage, and then there are things like polygamy and common law marriages.
In any logic puzzle, you have to define the terms at the outset, or else you've created ambiguity. It doesn't really matter how "marriage" is defined; it only matters that "marriage" is a binary state or not.
Comments
See, NOW I'm warping definitions and applying them in ridiculous ways. :P
Also
"pe⋅dan⋅tic /pəˈdæntɪk/[puh-dan-tik] –adjective \
1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching."
Being concerned with minute details and MAKING UP minute details are two very different things.
While you can't assume that Anne is a purple giraffe, or that Jack is "married" to the sea, you also cannot assume that they're actually people who are capable of being married, because you are not given that information. That's why you can't read it as a logic puzzle.
Honestly, the first time I read it, I thought, "Well, Anne could be a dog, so if they mean 'married people' the way we use it conventionally..." The ambiguity there results in "C" being a valid choice.
What Kate is doing is assuming that, based on the intent of the puzzle creator, Anne, Jack and George were meant to be people. However, this kind of thing is a big no-no in a logic puzzle. You should not need to read any more into the puzzle than what is said, or it is a bad logic puzzle.
I do, however, continue to assert that unmarried and married are mutually exclusive by definition so that issue never needed clarification in the first place.
The problem is that you have to make a lot of assumptions to make the answer work, at least the way it's worded. I agree, it needed to be worded as a list of statements of fact, followed by a conclusion. Something like:
Assume the following to be true:
-Jack, George, and Anne are all people.
-People can either be Married (M) or Unmarried (U)
-Jack is married; George is unmarried
-Jack is looking at Anne; Anne is looking at George
Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
EDIT: My statement that Kate quoted needed to be clearer. I was saying that the puzzle doesn't specify that anyone is actually a person. Again, if we assume that "married" necessitates having persons, then we can conclude that Jack and George are people. The same cannot be said for Anne.
1) Why would it make any difference if Jack, Anne, and George are not people? Let's assume they are rocks, so what?
2) What third state could there be between 'married' and 'unmarried', however 'married' is defined?
[1] NB:I also assumed WhaleShark's1 and 2 when I read the problem for the first time
Edit: (on my 2) Well, there is an assumption required: that 'married' is a binary state.
married -> person
implies that (since it is the contrapositive)
~person -> ~married
In English - if all marriages are between people, then all non-people are unmarried.
All that needs to be changed in the problem is one word.
Do you agree that my statement of the problem is sufficient, Pete?
Now, back to my pizza.
Depending on the definition of the word "married," we can very easily have non-people entities which are married, i.e. sailor and the sea, or the "marriage" of two ideas. There is also the possibility of a third state that is related but neither marriage nor unmarriage, such as the civil union.
Simply because Jack is "married" under one sense of the word does not necessarily mean that George is "unmarried" in the sense of the negation of Jack's state. The terminology could be used inconsistently in the problem. So, total clarity requires defining marriage as a binary state which precludes non-persons.
If we go with your statement and the assumptions I've outlined, we have Jack (M) ----> Anne (?) and Anne(?) ----> George (U). In this case, whether or not Anne is a person is irrelevant, and we will always have a married person looking at an unmarried entity. Anne's status as a person is well within the framework of the question. It's never specified, and the question specifically inquires about married persons. This level of technicality is necessary, particularly in very critical applications like the sciences.
This is NOT a lab, nor a scenario for "creative thinking". This is a logic puzzle. It is a silly game used to build up skills that can be applied elsewhere. The rules of the game is the framework of the question. Do you quibble because board games do not accurately represent the scenarios presented in their themes? It is equally absurd to argue the clear implication within the framework of this logic puzzle.
"Pete, I can't get your procedure to work."
"Did you read all the directions before proceeding?"
"No. I did X and Y happened."
"The very next sentence tells you not to do X, and what to do in the even that you do."
"Oh."
Makes the puzzle rather uninteresting... If we figure that 'married' is some sort of continuum, I suppose. Is there a definition like that in common (or uncommon) use?
In any logic puzzle, you have to define the terms at the outset, or else you've created ambiguity. It doesn't really matter how "marriage" is defined; it only matters that "marriage" is a binary state or not.