I get it. As Robert Reich noted in a recent Substack blog, our scarcest resource - attention - is too often being squandered, given:
"Our brains can take in only a limited amount of stimuli at one time. Sure, we can multitask. But there’s a limit."
In particular, people are exhausted by so much 'Sturm and drang': Gaza, Hamas terror, Houthi attacks on shipping, Ukraine war stalemate, citizens at each others' throats over free speech, nonstop threats from Trump and his MAGA minions, and the arrival of a political campaign season filling many with dread.
So many are getting numb to regular news if they haven't already. On that note, the posting frequency (for regular topics) will now be reduced to no more than 12-14 a month. Instead of blog posts-articles, brain busters and challenges will appear to encourage active participation and not just passive reading. These will be designed for difficulty - so likely can't be raced through in one day and maybe not in several.
Here is the first of three- prepared for today - but designed to sustain Brane Space netizens' interest over the next 2 weeks. Answers will appear starting on Groundhog Day!
LOGICAL LABYRINTH:
1. A object O is 2 degrees F. higher in temperature than body B which is 1.8 C higher than body C which is at 0 C. What is the temperature of O in Celsius degrees? (Hint: Every 1 C increase in temperature = 1.8 F)
A) 2.8 B) 1.8 C) 2.91 D)1.91
2) The equilateral triangle shown in Fig. 1(a) is rotated clockwise through 60 degrees, then 60 degrees counterclockwise, then through 360 degrees clockwise– what will the new orientation look like (Select option from Fig. 1b)
A) B) C) D)
3) If proposition X is true, then Z is also true. If X is false, then Y is true. If X and W are false, then Z MAY be true or false. If it is found that proposition Z is false, then:
A) X is false B) Y is true C) W is false D) all the preceding may be true
4)Roger is Paul’s uncle. Deke is Roger’s brother. Gerald is Deke’s father. Carmela is Gerald’s niece. Beula is Carmela’s daughter. How is Beula related to Roger?
A) niece B) sister C) cousin D) 2nd cousin
5) Consider these operations:
Let addition by 1 be denoted by A
Let multiplication by 2 be denoted by S
Let division by 4 be denoted by F
Let subtraction by 1 be denoted by T
Then given the sequence of operations: 28 SFATS, the result one obtains is:
A) 14 B) 28 C) 56 D) 7
A) X is false B) Y is true C) W is false D) all the preceding may be true
4)Roger is Paul’s uncle. Deke is Roger’s brother. Gerald is Deke’s father. Carmela is Gerald’s niece. Beula is Carmela’s daughter. How is Beula related to Roger?
A) niece B) sister C) cousin D) 2nd cousin
5) Consider these operations:
Let addition by 1 be denoted by A
Let multiplication by 2 be denoted by S
Let division by 4 be denoted by F
Let subtraction by 1 be denoted by T
Then given the sequence of operations: 28 SFATS, the result one obtains is:
A) 14 B) 28 C) 56 D) 7
6) Referencing the square shown in Fig. 2, one can apply the following operations, each of which can alter its orientation:
R1: Rotation clockwise by 90 degrees
R2: rotation clockwise by 180 degrees
R3: rotation clockwise by 270 degrees
M1: Mirrors corners exactly through the midline of the square
M2: Mirrors two opposing diagonal corners: from top left to bottom right
M3: Mirrors two opposing corners in the opposite sense to M2
If we apply the sequence of operations to the square (in the order identified):
R2 M1 M3
Then the result is (assuming the square in Fig. 2 is given by ABCD):
A) ABCD B) BCDA C) DABC D) CDAB
R1: Rotation clockwise by 90 degrees
R2: rotation clockwise by 180 degrees
R3: rotation clockwise by 270 degrees
M1: Mirrors corners exactly through the midline of the square
M2: Mirrors two opposing diagonal corners: from top left to bottom right
M3: Mirrors two opposing corners in the opposite sense to M2
If we apply the sequence of operations to the square (in the order identified):
R2 M1 M3
Then the result is (assuming the square in Fig. 2 is given by ABCD):
A) ABCD B) BCDA C) DABC D) CDAB
7) An experiment is performed in which the bacterium E. Coli, grown in a medium devoid of galactosides, so that its three available proteins (alpha, beta, gamma – or A, B, G) are synthesized at an exceedingly slow rate – about 1 molecule every five generations.
If galactoside is introduced into the medium the rate of synthesis of all three proteins is increased a thousandfold. E.g. A/1000t = B/1000t = C/1000t.
If it is withdrawn, the synthesis rate returns to its original low form:
A/t = B/t = C/t
A chemical K is added in a new experiment, which increases the density of all 3 proteins by 100 times. If the galactoside is re-introduced but at half the concentration as before, then we can expect the new rate of synthesis for all three proteins, and for every five generations to be:
A) 5 molecules B) 500 molecules C) 25 molecules D) 250 molecules
8) Examine the sequence of steps in Fig. 3a and the possible next configuration in Fig..3b. The new configuration will most likely be that in:
A) B) C) D)
If galactoside is introduced into the medium the rate of synthesis of all three proteins is increased a thousandfold. E.g. A/1000t = B/1000t = C/1000t.
If it is withdrawn, the synthesis rate returns to its original low form:
A/t = B/t = C/t
A chemical K is added in a new experiment, which increases the density of all 3 proteins by 100 times. If the galactoside is re-introduced but at half the concentration as before, then we can expect the new rate of synthesis for all three proteins, and for every five generations to be:
A) 5 molecules B) 500 molecules C) 25 molecules D) 250 molecules
8) Examine the sequence of steps in Fig. 3a and the possible next configuration in Fig..3b. The new configuration will most likely be that in:
A) B) C) D)
9) A person (religious) makes the claim:
“Laws of nature are descriptive , whereas logical laws , like ethical laws are prescriptive . That is , laws of logic tell us how we ought to reason in order to conform our thought to how things really are A miracle is an exception to physical law . As such it does not contradict the general law . The comparison between physical laws and laws of thought is invalid .”
The logical error committed by the author is:
A) Making the claim both logical and ethical laws are “prescriptive”- since no absolute ethics exists.
B) Making the claim that the laws of logic tell us how to reason, since reason developed the laws in the first place.
C) Omitting the role of quantum logic, which supersedes Boolean 'Either-or' logic and hence represents the applicable laws of thought for quantum mechanics.
D) All of the above
10) Considering the author’s claim that a “miracle is an exception to physical law” and the simultaneous claim “it doesn’t contradict the general law”, the best question to ask this author would be:
A) What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an “exception”?
B) How does one discriminate between ordinary exceptions associated with certain physical laws (i.e. For the 2nd law of thermodynamics, biological organisms are a temporary exception to increasing disorder) and “miracle exceptions”?
C) If thought is required to formulate physical laws, then how can comparison between them be ‘invalid’?
D) All of the above
“Laws of nature are descriptive , whereas logical laws , like ethical laws are prescriptive . That is , laws of logic tell us how we ought to reason in order to conform our thought to how things really are A miracle is an exception to physical law . As such it does not contradict the general law . The comparison between physical laws and laws of thought is invalid .”
The logical error committed by the author is:
A) Making the claim both logical and ethical laws are “prescriptive”- since no absolute ethics exists.
B) Making the claim that the laws of logic tell us how to reason, since reason developed the laws in the first place.
C) Omitting the role of quantum logic, which supersedes Boolean 'Either-or' logic and hence represents the applicable laws of thought for quantum mechanics.
D) All of the above
10) Considering the author’s claim that a “miracle is an exception to physical law” and the simultaneous claim “it doesn’t contradict the general law”, the best question to ask this author would be:
A) What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an “exception”?
B) How does one discriminate between ordinary exceptions associated with certain physical laws (i.e. For the 2nd law of thermodynamics, biological organisms are a temporary exception to increasing disorder) and “miracle exceptions”?
C) If thought is required to formulate physical laws, then how can comparison between them be ‘invalid’?
D) All of the above
11) Given the author's reference to "general law" - what would you conclude?
A) He has conflated "general law" with laws of thought, without defining the former.
B) He has committed the "one True Scotsman" fallacy, i.e. asserting a certain association always trumps any other associations by virtue of having some special dispensation or quality (usually an appeal to "authority" or an undefined God).
C) He has erred in extrapolating from the particular to the general.
D) He has committed all the above.
No comments:
Post a Comment