Dean 13's Comments
Here is the e-mail I sent to the test maker :
Not only I think that my answer to the question 15 (valid) was good, I think that the one presented as the "correct one" (therefore, invalid) is clearly wrong.
From the beginning, you give us premises. Some are accurate, some are not but it doesn't change anything for the test (example, question 10 is false : Paris is in New Zealand). Question 10 could have been : "A lives in X" "X is in Y" "Therefore A lives in Y".
The first premise of question 15 is : "Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.". You give us a definition : Water is THIS. I know it may not be completly accurate in real life (as it was for Paris). Water could be defined otherwise, but in this test, we've gotta think only in function of your premises. It is easier when we use some variables : "Z is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom", or if you prefer : "Z is D".
The conclusion is : "Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.". My answer is : of course, yes. Because water is D, anytime we examine water it will always be D. If it isn't, that would mean that the substance examined wasn't water, because de premise define it by is chemical composition. See it that way :
a) Z is D
b) Every observations or examination as confirmed that Z is D (superfluous, from the beginning, premises don't have to be confirmed, we're only evaluating their link to the conclusion)
Conclusion : Therefore we can predict that every future examination of Z will reveal that it is D. (of course, conclusion is premise a).
In the explication of your answer, you write : "However, it is possible also that there may exist a substance that looks like water, boils as water, freezes as water, nourishes plants and life as water, and yet has a different chemical composition to what we know as water." Then, it would simply not be water as defined in the premise a). Therefore, it wouldn't be an examination of water (or Z). You use the expression "to what we know as water". As I said, we only know what is in the premise, same thing than Paris in New Zealand.
I strongly suggest that you review your position.
Not only I think that my answer to the question 15 (valid) was good, I think that the one presented as the "correct one" (therefore, invalid) is clearly wrong.
From the beginning, you give us premises. Some are accurate, some are not but it doesn't change anything for the test (example, question 10 is false : Paris is in New Zealand). Question 10 could have been : "A lives in X" "X is in Y" "Therefore A lives in Y".
The first premise of question 15 is : "Water is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.". You give us a definition : Water is THIS. I know it may not be completly accurate in real life (as it was for Paris). Water could be defined otherwise, but in this test, we've gotta think only in function of your premises. It is easier when we use some variables : "Z is a molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom", or if you prefer : "Z is D".
The conclusion is : "Therefore we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition.". My answer is : of course, yes. Because water is D, anytime we examine water it will always be D. If it isn't, that would mean that the substance examined wasn't water, because de premise define it by is chemical composition. See it that way :
a) Z is D
b) Every observations or examination as confirmed that Z is D (superfluous, from the beginning, premises don't have to be confirmed, we're only evaluating their link to the conclusion)
Conclusion : Therefore we can predict that every future examination of Z will reveal that it is D. (of course, conclusion is premise a).
In the explication of your answer, you write : "However, it is possible also that there may exist a substance that looks like water, boils as water, freezes as water, nourishes plants and life as water, and yet has a different chemical composition to what we know as water." Then, it would simply not be water as defined in the premise a). Therefore, it wouldn't be an examination of water (or Z). You use the expression "to what we know as water". As I said, we only know what is in the premise, same thing than Paris in New Zealand.
I strongly suggest that you review your position.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
$600! I could buy a few real guns with that amount and then just find someone who has this piece of crap and rob them of it.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
It must be true if it's on the internet!
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Perhaps, but Australia is also one of the most taxed nation in the world; I don't see why they wouldn't have loads of money stacked beneath em to soften the fall.