If "some men are doctors", and "some doctors are tall", does it follow that "some men are tall"?

Who is right Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
lsac.org/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It is not necessary that all tall doctors are men

Obviously, all of the tall doctors could be women so, logically, it does not follow that some men are tall.

what about women doctors?
of course, no attention is given to them

OOOOH BOYS CLUB OOOOOH GURLS CAN'T BE DOCTORS, MISS NURSE, PLEASE BLOW ME UNDER THE DESK XD
fucking pigs

The negro.

She is injecting other factors into an equation that does not account for them.

How is she wrong?

She is not the nigger!
Some is a quantifying term,more than one but not all is,some.
If some men are doctors and some doctors are tall than the logical over lap is that some men are tall.
Because of the doctor camp there is an over lap of men who are tall and men who are doctors.

Christ niggers are arrogantly dumb

some is unspecific.
answer is yes unless we assume that every tall doctor is a women, but that's unlikely.

This. She's an engineer, logic is nice and everything but in the end reality and observation trumps logic. Some men are tall.

Manlets irreversibly BTFO

Consider 10 people.
5 manlets, 2 of which are doctors
and 5 tall women, 2 of which are doctors.

There is no logical connection between the some doctors that are men and the some doctors that are tall

Not necessarily. Which is the point.

think in a venn diagram, we know there's overlap between male circle and doctor circle and there's overlap between doctor and tall circles but that doesn't imply an overlap between male and tall circles

what are you talking about

Of course some men are tall, but in the context of the logic problem, the answer is no.

SOME men are doctors. SOME doctors are tall. Not all of the tall doctors are necessarily men.

In the fucked-up alternate reality of this logical problem, it is entirely possible that ALL men are manlets, and some of those manlets are doctors, but all of the tall doctors could be female. Picture it with a Venn diagram and it makes sense.

some men are doctors
some doctors have vaginas
does it follow that some men have vaginas?

But I know for a fact some doctors are tall. This is stupid.

So then the question can't be answered with a yes or no, surely?

In the context of the question, it is not a given that any of the tall doctors are also men. It is likely to be, but it's not certain.

Though obviously in the real world outside of logic puzzles some men are tall.

The question is likely designed to weed out those that do and do not know formal logic.

The balance of probability was not part of the question.

In fact, the question is intentionally vague. The true answer to this questions is simple:

>There is not enough information or data available to make a determination.

It would be ignorant to answer either yes or no to a question where the information needed to make such a determination is not present. They are both wrong.

of course some doctors are tall what of it.

the some doctors that are tall arent necessarily any of the men who are doctors

No, that is wrong. The answer is yes.
You dont consider 1 million chances, the only qualifiers you are given in this problem is some, and that this exists in both camps. Logically there is an overlap, if you take a random population tall and male doctors and the wave function collapse happens to reveal there are no tall male doctors the answer would still be yes, because the wave function never collapses and some tall male doctors exists in the realm of possibility. You people are fucking stupid.

Some men are doctors,
all tall doctors are female
Thus some doctors will never learn

No, because the question is "does it follow". It is asking if there is a logical necessity for some men to be tall based on the two premises.

The question itself is flawed and can't be answered with yes or no.

If some jerps are clarps, and some clarps are rambly, does that mean that some jerps are rambly?

>medical engineer
She could be very well working for $20k a year, a fancy way of saying "medical technician" working in the piss lab. Or she did get a token womyn job for $75k

She's right, though

Some sure act like they do

you sincerely don't understand how logic works do you

>people say no because it's not necessarily true
>LOL UR DUM CUZ IT CUD B TRUE!!1!

neat

>In the fucked-up alternate reality of this logical problem
the question primarily asks about your view. there is no right or wrong in here.

assume 1000 people, 500 are tall, 250 tall men, 100 doctors, 50 male.
chance is small that no male person is tall.

this would be another view. small sample size, assuming that only manlets running around.

/thread

There is not necessarily an intersection between the tall doctors set and the men who are doctors set. Within the unrealistic confines of this question of course.

It can be. The answer is no because it is not certain.

To rephrase it: Can we be sure that from this given information that X is true? If it is not certain then the answer is no.

I hope she comes on here and posts her reply.

"Faggy manlet BTFO"

But seriously. There is, although not guaranteed, potential that some men are tall.

So logically from an engineering perspective it makes sense to design things under the assumption that some men could be tall.

If some forests have predators and some predators attack people, it doesn't logically follow that all forests have predator attacks, but you'd be a retard to wander into any forest without your bear mace.

The answer is maybe

>literally a retarded crow paradox

but the question wasn't "are some men tall?", it was "does it Follow that some men are tall?", it was a question of whether it's posible to reach that conclusion on those premises so the answer is NO

Possibly, but not necessarily, some men are tall

Women have higher mean IQ but lower density in the top end. There is a man and a woman answering the question, thus it follows that the man is right and the woman is wrong.

Yeah, I get it now, I'm one of the suckers that assumes all doctors are male lol.

The question is not flawed and the answer is 100% NO

This is a simple LSAT-style logic question. The answer is not we do not know, or there isn't enough information or etc. The answer is NO. The question is asking whether it can be logically inferred whether some men are tall - it can not.

I've probably answered 500+ questions identical to this.

why tf is pol so dumb

>but in the end reality and observation trumps logic.
Right, great, but the question was: "Does it follow".

>The answer is no because it is not certain
That's equally wrong as saying yes though

>So logically from an engineering perspective it makes sense to design things under the assumption that some men could be tall.

That's not how it works. Anthropometrics is an entire field dedicated to making things that will fit the widest group of people. Outliers get things custom made.

You can't prove that some men are tall with those two.

Let's put it in terms you can understand. If some Jews are gassed, and some of the people who get gassed are incinerated, does that mean some Jews get incinerated?

I made a thing.

It isn't because of what is being asked.

It is asking whether we can be sure of this information. We can't, so the answer is no.

nice, that's the best way to explain it. When completing logic games it's always best to diagram.

I get it now. The language is confusing.
Got some more examples?

This is a question in some textbooks on logic, and in that case the answer is no - it does not follow. But that is only when using predicate logic (existence quantifiers etc.). In this case, it's just a simple question, so one would assume that statistical likelyhood trumps pure logic.

No, it isn't about your personal view, and it isn't about chance.

The question is a formal logic problem asking if claim C follows from assumptions A and B, which it does not.

does it FOLLOW that some doctors are tall
its asking if you can be certain some doctors are tall from the information given, which you cannot

If "terrorist win if they are killed" and "ISIS has nothing to do with islam" does it follow that "Islam is terrorism"?

She's right.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Some doctors are tall doesn't necessarily mean that some MALE doctors are tall. For all you know it could be just females. You can't make a logical connection based only on the two.

and this is why you will never be with the infantry schlomo.

keep being an intel cuck

>Woman from Commiefornia
>On a dating site

Any guy should close the browser and run. Just run away. And keep running

Fair, maybe I'm being unnecessarily harsh.

Logical Reasoning and Logic Games can be fun and are a good way to train your brain. If you want more, here is a free practice LSAT test. It's meant to be completed timed but you can just do problems for fun.

lsac.org/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf

Section 2 and 3 contain questions most similar to the one in the OP.

...

If jim and tim are manlet doctors, Barbara is a tall doctor, and Carl is a janitor
Then some men are doctors and some doctors are tall. If we could infer "yes, there are some tall men" from the two assumtions, then we'd get a contradiction with our example

That's how those questions work. "Does it hold for each scenario?" No it doesn't. QFT

Why haven't you guys find her company yet? The world should know it's heroes.

She isn't.
Some men are tall.

The question tricks autists into thinking too much.

Can you prove those two circles overlap.
I can prove mine:
>some men are doctor
left overlap
>some doctors are tall
right overlap

I thought it through some more and no, you're actually correct. Fuck.

I actually was an artilery half-cuck.

Daily Reminder that KC shill are lurking here.
Bringing KC Threads to pol.

true true

No. Perhaps all the tall doctors are female.

fucking this /thread
you autists can't into logic and its got me on tilt

Again you can't prove that your circles necessarily overlap like this

Exactly, it can be inferred from the real world, to where autists does not go. It's an implied truth thus she is actually right.

>All doctors are tall
Ok shekelstein

You sincerely do not.
There are 3 premises
Some meaning more than one but not all
Some men are drs
Some doctors are tall
Does it logically follow that some doctors are tall men?

Instead you choose to affirm the negative i.e all women doctors are tall, a premise not stated in the originally nor one to logically assume as you are given that some conditionality.

So the answer is yes.
Derp derp

>Argentina cannot into logic

Yet look at how much of Sup Forums didn't know the answer either.

Oh Woops, you are right. The Swedecuck is wrong.

Where in the question does it state that tall and men overlap?

It is possible (though unlikely) that all the male doctors are short.

Who cares? As long as she didn't get BLACKED, I'm happy.

This makes the error of assuming the male doctors and the tall doctors overlap, when nothing in the logic problem suggests that they do. There are "some" male doctors and "some" tall doctors, but you could have, for example, 3 short male lawyers, 1 short male doctor, 2 short female doctors, and 1 tall female doctor, a set that meets all criteria of the problem but in which 0 men are tall. When the question asks if it "follows," the answer has to be logically true for each possible outcome.

This is the correct way to diagram it.

is it possible for a solution set to contain tall women doctors and short male doctors only, yes, ergo it does not logically follow that you are guaranteed a solution set that has some tall male doctors.
Jesus fuck man how are you this dumb

The diagram assumes all doctors are tall

> she didn't get BLACKED
You think so?

Just change "men" to "aliens from Nebula 5" or some other thing that we have no data on, and do it again.

>Mechanical Engineer, for fuck's sake

Daddy paid for her degree, she had a boyfriend do her homework
Daddy pulled strings to get her hired
"Works" by taking phone calls and photocopies
>I am a strong, independent, self-made female mechanical engineer

men can't be tall, nope.jpg

Yeah, you're right, he didn't even include all the sets in the diagram.

So that's two ways in which it is illogical.

Here is another easy question.

Economist: Every business strives to increase its productivity, for this increases profits for the
owners and the likelihood that the business will
survive. But not all efforts to increase
productivity are beneficial to the business as a
whole. Often, attempts to increase productivity
decrease the number of employees, which clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses
the main conclusion of the economist’s argument?

(A) If an action taken to secure the survival of a
business fails to enhance the welfare of the
business’s employees, that action cannot be
good for the business as a whole.

(B) Some measures taken by a business to increase
productivity fail to be beneficial to the business
as a whole.

(C) Only if the employees of a business are also its
owners will the interests of the employees and
owners coincide, enabling measures that will
be beneficial to the business as a whole.

(D) There is no business that does not make efforts
to increase its productivity.

(E) Decreasing the number of employees in a
business undermines the sense of security of retained employees.

How are you not getting it?
The wave function never collapses so your answer is wrong. Just because its a possible 1/10000000 condition doesnt mean its wrong. The question is one of logic not absolutism, it does not say will a some doctors always be tall men. It asks if given the following premises can you logically assume x conclusion.
Yes
Too fucking dumb

Especially if they are Indian men

p(m)=p(f)=1/2; male/female (fuck off tumblr)
p(d)>0; there exist docs
p(t)>0; there exist tall people

The entire question is about male docs, docs that are tall and implication that some men are tall. no other info given.

p(m)*p(d)*p(t) = p(x); where p(x) is the prob. of a tall, male, doc.

implying that some men that are doctors, are tall. therefore the statement some men are tall, within the realm of giving information, is true.

They are testing to see if you understand transitive relations, in her case, she prob related it to the 0th law of thermo.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation

Tall is a self-referential comparison between the same object type, so it would probably follow anyway.

You're retarded.

But she s right. It's basic proposition logic

Some A is B
Some B is C
therefore, Some A is C

My philosophy is a little rusty, but i think this is right.

>complains that others can't into logic
>literally failed at answering this basic logic questions