DeletedUser8396
Guest
Hey everyone! I'm back with one of my creative, yet horrible, ideas.
The goal of this is for a user to post 2 premises of a syllogism, another user give the conclusion and propose two more premises, and then another user say if that user's logic is valid (and why), give the conclusion for the user above's syllogism, and give two premises himself.
Confusing? Good. Let me show you:
The goal is to try and trick the user into making an invalid claim. Go ahead, give it a try. I swear it'll be more fun than it sounds! Btw, in case you're unfamiliar with this, the premises do not need to be accurate in order to be logically sound. Now, my premises:
All shovels are marine animals.
All marine animals are cute.
The goal of this is for a user to post 2 premises of a syllogism, another user give the conclusion and propose two more premises, and then another user say if that user's logic is valid (and why), give the conclusion for the user above's syllogism, and give two premises himself.
Confusing? Good. Let me show you:
Poster One (Me) said:All crayons are sharp.
Some pencils are sharp.
Poster Two said:Therefore some pencils are crayons.
My premises:
All pineapples are orange.
All pebbles are pineapples.
Poster Three said:Your conclusion is invalid. Sharpness doesn't make it a pencil.
Conclusion to your premises: Therefore, all pebbles are orange.
My premises:
All crayons are sharp.
Some pencils are sharp.
The goal is to try and trick the user into making an invalid claim. Go ahead, give it a try. I swear it'll be more fun than it sounds! Btw, in case you're unfamiliar with this, the premises do not need to be accurate in order to be logically sound. Now, my premises:
All shovels are marine animals.
All marine animals are cute.