Intelligence – Logic
Premise 1 : Golden Retriever is a dog
Premise 2 : A dog is an animal
Conclusion : Golden Retriever is an animal
Logical reasoning is indispensable for intellectual progression. The example above is a basic deductive argument. Having proper deductive reasoning will help you create a foundation for all other thoughts to be built on. Provided that the premises that you acquired are true. Than you may begin to use inductive reasoning and extrapolation skills to predict potential outcomes thus make better decisions in your daily life.
Here’s a more complicated problem :
Who’s the Killer?
Premise 1 : Only one suspect is the killer
Premise 2 : Only one claim of a suspects is true, all other claims are lies
Claim of suspect A : Suspect C is the killer
Claim of suspect B : Suspect A is the killer
Claim of suspect C : Suspect A is lying
Claim of suspect D : Suspect D is not the killer
Conclusion : ?
Solution is at the end of the article to prevent spoilers.
Many people will obtain a false conclusion as a result of flawed logic. Others will give up sooner or later perhaps due to the fact that critical thinking is too exhausting. Some will make an extensive effort to derive the correct conclusion by utilizing proper logic. A few will be intelligent enough to figure it out effortlessly. Which one are you?
Logic is only a fraction of our human limitations. Due to our other limitations, logic becomes exponentially more fallible. The premises we acquire, that we so desperately rely on, are often flawed or outright false. In another word, you may have phenomenal logical reasoning, but if you receive all sorts of flawed information due to poor perceptions or misplaced faith, you can just as easily deduce a false conclusion.
Imagine for a moment, the logical capability an average human being. Now, understand that half of the population have progressively inferior logical reasoning than a median person. Such realization may paint a bleak outlook for some, but to recognize that even the smartest turkey is still just a turkey, as the most intelligent human is still a human, should assist us in humbling ourselves.
Logic allows us to deep dive into most communications by building on top of consensual foundational premises. The knowledge we possess or lack can lead us to vastly different conclusions in all subjects. Through discussions and arguments, ideas can be refined and improved. However, certain level of logical ability is required for all participating parties to sustain a productive conversation. This requirement alone makes communication between certain individuals difficult, or seemingly impossible.
indeed, if you call out for insight
– Proverbs 2:3-5(NIV)
and cry aloud for understanding,
and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,
then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
What do you think? Liking this series so far? Leave me a comment down below!
Spoiler Warning : Solution and logical reasoning below!
Through process of elimination, we can deduce who the truth teller is, thus ultimately leads us to the killer.
If A speaks truth, than D’s claim must be true also, which contradicts with Premise 2, then A must be lying.
If B speaks truth, than both C and D’s claim must be true also, which contradicts with Premise 2, then B must be lying.
If C speaks truth, A, B, D’s claims can be lies. Then C could be the truth teller.
If D speaks truth, than A and C’s claim is in direct contradiction, A and C can’t both be lying. Either A or C must be telling the truth also. If A is lying, than C must be telling the truth. If C is lying, A must be telling the truth. Thus contradicts with Premise 2. Then D must be lying.
If A, B, D must be lying, and C as a truth teller is the only claim without contradiction to premise 2, then C must be telling the truth.
If C must be telling the truth and A, B, D must be lying, than A must not be the killer due to B’s claims, C must not be the killer due to A and C’s claims, D must be the killer due to D’s claim, B must not be the killer due to D’s claim and Premise 1.
Conclusion : Suspect D is the killer
This is the best explanation I can offer with my logical limitations. If you have a more elegant way to describe and solve this logical puzzle, please share with us in the comments section!