A Hard Question Plz Help (Dunno if this has been said)?

Question

If the statement below is true and

If the statement above is false

Which is true and which is false?

Answer 1

Neither? I have no idea.

Answer 2

Both are True AND False at the same time! OMG!

Answer 3

it is same as


(Premise) Sandy Beach is north of Kona.
(Premise) Haleiwa is north of Sandy Beach.
(Premise) Hanalei is north of Haleiwa.

(Conclusion) So, Hanalei must be north of Kona.

I had thought that we could start with an example that students could easily relate to, one that used familiar places in the island chain. This way they would not be distracted by unfamiliar content and would have a comfortable example of an argument with a valid reasoning trail. The example bombed not because the students were unfamiliar with the places mentioned, but because to my surprise many local people living on Oahu (the island where I teach) don't use the directions north, south, east, and west. Instead they give directions by referring to Mauka (in the direction of the mountains), Makai (in the direction of the ocean), Diamond Head (in the direction of the major Waikiki landmark), or Ewa (a leeward or westward part of the island). Because they didn't understand yet the difference between the reasoning trail and the content of that trail, they were distracted by their lack of understanding of the phrase "north of" and were hesitant to agree that this was a valid argument.

As you read this you may be in a similar situation. If you don't know the places mentioned above, you can't judge whether these statements are true. Like the blind man, you and some of my students are blind as to what the truth is, but also like the blind man, you should be able to judge the reasoning trail to be valid anyway. In other words, it does not matter if you know the premises to be true or not; all you need to understand is the meaning of the statements. Let's show this by representing what these statements claim to be true, by representing the argument with a picture. We will represent "north of" as "up" and see what the premises imply.(6)


Hanalei (north of) above Haleiwa, and hence (north of) above Kona

Haleiwa (north of) above Sandy Beach

Sandy Beach (north of) above Kona

Kona


Pictured this way, we see that there is no doubt that if Sandy Beach is really (north of) above Kona, and if Haleiwa is really (north of) above Sandy Beach, and if Hanalei is really (north of) above Haleiwa, then Hanalei must also be above (north of) Kona. We can judge this argument to be valid absolutely, even if the truth of each statement is uncertain. We can illustrate this point further by showing that we can create a valid argument that contains statements that contradict the statements in the above example, such as: Because Sandy Beach is south of Kona, and Haleiwa is south of Sandy Beach, and because Hanalei is south of Haleiwa, Hanalei (conclusion) must be south of Kona. We can again see that this argument is valid by representing the claims within the argument with a picture, now using "below" for "south of."

Kona

Sandy Beach (south of) below Kona

Haleiwa (south of) below Sandy Beach

Hanalei (south of) below Haleiwa, and hence (south of) below Kona


Notice that in both examples the conclusion is already contained in the premises; that once we represent the premises we are "locked into" the conclusion, because in a sense we have already stated the conclusion. Our method of representation shows that stating the conclusion is only making explicit what was already implicit. This feature is the hallmark of all valid deductive arguments.

Two very important points about logic and rationality follow from these examples. Being logical does not guarantee truth or being right all the time, and rational people can still disagree -- two people can disagree over a belief but each have logically valid reasons for holding their respective beliefs. Consider these two examples.

EXAMPLE 1-3 (Valid)

(Premise) If the Constitution implies that each person has a right to self-determination concerning matters of a person's physical body, then abortion should be legal.

(Premise) The Constitution does imply this.

(Conclusion) Therefore, abortion should be legal.

Answer 4

Neither

Answer 5

Neither, grasshopper. Everything is all shades of black and white, truth and lie, fantasy and reality......besides, these are pretty relative concepts. What is true for you, may not be true for me...

Answer 6

They are neither false nor true!

Answer 7

The 1st is true and the 2nd is false...LOL

Answer 8

Which came first the egg or the chicken?

Answer 9

Neither.

Answer 10

You're not reading between the lines.

Answer 11

They are both false.