logic thread
forallx.openlogicproject.org
Logic thread
forallx.openlogicproject.org
You posted this thread three weeks ago you faggot retard nigger. In my 10 years on this website I have never posted the same thread twice. Kill yourself.
there is no reason to learn logic since you know it all already
Schopenhauer speaks about this
not political
fuuuuck these threads are gay
why don't you spend your time more productively by putting flowers on all the murdered jewish childrens' graves in the tophet like a good litle kike you lousy queer
That's bullshit, but a very common idea, you're just brainwashed. They have removed logic from the masses, and one way they do it is by brainwashing the masses that it's innate rather than learned, meanwhile the elite study it.
Also they studied logic for years in the middle ages.
en.wikipedia.org
Freemasons study logic in the first degrees, aka the blue lodge. Picrel talks about it.
The answer is B. It has two statements supporting it.
the elite do not study logic
autistic swedes on Anon Babble study logic
I have three books on logic. Great ones.
They do, in Freemasonry and at their elite schools like Eton College. They study grammar, logic and rhetoric, exactly the subjects the masses learn nothing about, because these are the tools of thought, you don't know them you are easy to control, you know them you have power.
You're wrong. It's d. A restuarant that serves dog shit is not going to helped by its convenience. D holds, it's generalizable and deductible from the information. You kinda suck?
two things that help see what this question is about
a) the argument is:
This discrepancy should come as no surprise, since the Traintrack Inn's more convenient location is by itself almost enough to guarantee a steady flow of customers.
this is in two parts, premise and conclusion
premise: the Traintrack Inn's more convenient location is by itself almost enough to guarantee a steady flow of customers
conclusion: this discrepancy should come as no surprise
b) The first sentence is not the argument but context for the argument. It provides a referent for the referential phrase "this discrepancy" in the argument. The referent is this.
the food at Marva's Diner is exceptional, while the food at the more popular Traintrack Inn is fairly ordinary
Uh, no. The restaurant critic clearly assumes the principle that even a restaurant with bad food will be better off in a better location. If anything the paragraph disproves D since Martha's diner makes better food but still can't attract customers.
Assume your principle position and get fucked in your ass like the faggot you are. Its d and you're a retard.
The key point in the argument is that we should not be surprised at x. In other words we should expect x. What is x? The discrepancy. What is the discrepancy? The fact that a restaurant which is more popular has worse food.
His argument is that we should expect a restaurant which is more popular to have worse food. The question is asking why he thinks this.
Hey welcome back friend.
You got any link for this book?
DIdn't find in libgen
Or maybe I said that wrong. Rather his argument is that we should expect that the Traintrack Inn’s food is worse than Marva’s Diner’s food. The question is asking why he thinks this.
A restuarant that serves dog shit is not going to helped by its convenience.
That only contradicts B if you model the location-contingent popularity boost which it posits as an additive effect. If you instead model that popularity boost as multiplicative, there's no problem. Assume a restaurant will get a ×b popularity boost by moving from location X to location Y. If said restaurant has popularity 0 due to serving excrement, then 0×b=0 and the restaurant's popularity is not helped, yet principle B from the OP still holds.
Principle D being true would only weakly support the critic's reasoning, since it doesn't rule out a threshold value of exceptionality at which the popularity of Marva's Diner exceeds that of Traintrack Inn. i.e., if D holds, then Marva's Diner can be expected to continue improving their food until their popularity exceeds that of Traintrack Inn.
B. The question is about restaurant critic's reasoning and principle and he reasons that irrespective of quality of food a convenient place of restaurant is by itself enough to guarantee a steady flow of customers.
The only answer that is supported by fact and not opinion is E.
You can't open Dog Shit on a Bn Inn (well you could bc youre a disgusting shitskin) on NPC commuter highway 101 and expect profit pajeet doichbag
No, but amazon has a free sample.
So absolutely no relationship between Quality and Popularity? This can't be principle because of this one example. This is very generic. While B is more specific principle.
I was reading that just now. Also it seems Amazon stopped selling it.
The diner is doing just fine. It doesn't need to do anything. Unlike you, you need to go back to class.
None, you life in a capitalist world. The jewish arts are necesary towin:
Marketing
Copywriting
Advertising
There you go, to win in a jewish society, tou need to become a jew.
You are a retard. A perfect candidate for next politicians.You are conflating like a faggot. Go away from logic thread. Because of people like you Anon Babble becomes unusable. kys.
Don't you have a train to catch?
E because mcdonalds is shit and it's popular
Reasoning means how you infer your conclusion from your premise/premises. The premise and conclusion of the critic's argument are:
premise: the Traintrack Inn's more convenient location is by itself almost enough to guarantee a steady flow of customers
conclusion: this discrepancy should come as no surprise
he reasons that irrespective of quality of food a convenient place of restaurant is by itself enough to guarantee a steady flow of customers
No, that's not his reasoning, that's his premise.
No, the critic thinks there is a relationship, otherwise he wouldn't say it's a discrepancy, in other words that we don't normally expect a restaurant with worse food to be more popular.
What is he asserting? The first sentence is his conclusion and he backs it up with argument : "Since the Traintrack Inn's more convenient location"
shit here faggot
The question is about the argument in the text, not about the real world.
D. There is no economic reason to improve the quality of the food at the high traffic location. However the lower traffic location requires a higher standard of food to be economically viable. Therefore, there is no requirement to improve the quality of food at the high traffic location. Their economically viability does not demand it, unlike the other location. If it was an economically required model, the high traffic location would have to improve its product quality to compete with the other location.
It's hard to figure out which one is premise and which statement is conclusion. Generally premises are axioms or observable events. But I think you are right. The premise looks complex in your sentence but it simple in observation: The Traintack has more customer than other restaurant.
Good thread OP, thought it was B at first, realise it's D now.
No, the first sentence is context.
inv.nadeko.net
He is asserting that we should expect that the Traintrack Inn’s food is worse than Marva’s Diner’s food. The question is why he thinks this.
D is the only option which addresses why it should come as no surprise that the Traintrack Inn’s food is worse than Marva’s Diner’s food, which is what the question is asking for.
Takes some practice to see what is premise, what is conclusion, what is not argument but context. A lot of times indicator words are helpful, like here the premise is indicated by SINCE.
we should expect that the Traintrack Inn’s food is worse than Marva’s Diner’s food
worse
Given the information provided, a reasonable expectation is that Traintrack Inn’s food is not better than Marva’s Diner’s food. Strictly expecting that Traintrack Inn’s food will be worse unjustifiably excludes the edge case in which both restaurants serve food of equivalent quality, wherein we would still expect (given the information presented) that Traintrack Inn would be more popular.
The diner is doing just fine
Assuming information not in evidence.
D.
The goyslop is worse at the busier location, thusly leading us to the Goldsteinburg business principle.
a) Make the goy chow as sloped as possible for the nigger cattle.
b) Use fillers, use emulsifiers, use thickeners, use dyes, use high fructose corn syrup.
c) Buy John Deer, make it illegal to repair, Microsoft buys the farm land, plants GMO micro plastic slop crops for the freshly arrived on U.S. Military flights third world fighting age male brown skinned replacement workers.
d) feed them soi cricket burgers that are pumped full of estrogen
????????????
(((LargeNosedGoblinRubbingStolenGoldTogetherGreedily.jpg)))