# Is this quiz tricky? If so, how? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 10, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725 "2010-10-10T22:52:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/41 "2010-10-13T03:27:08Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > Didn’t see this on preview: > > > [@Frylock](#): > > > > In the sense of “inference” we’re using in the class (admittedly a quasi-technical sense) each pair of sentences on the quiz is an inference. An inference is, so to speak, a single act of reasoning. **By this I mean it’s an assertion of a conclusion on the basis of one or more premises.** In each of the examples in the quiz, one sentence is most plausibly read as containing a conclusion, the other most plausibly read as containing a premise intended to support that conclusion. > > This I agree with. > > This I don’t. If someone were to actually make the statements, I would interpret “Pizza is awesome” as a direct observation of the speaker. Why would you interpret it that way if the next sentence begins with the phrase, “For you see”? Doesn’t “for you see” indicate that what follows is going to give reasons to believe what preceded? And if that’s the case, doesn’t this make what preceded the conclusion of an inference, the premise or premises of which follow the phrase “for you see”? TLDR: What do you make of “for you see” in that example? Why doesn’t that phrase make you read “pizza is awesome” as the conclusion of an inference? > [@](#): > > How does the reader know that the speaker doesn’t know the prevalence of three-legged dogs? Perhaps he read of a study where that figure was found. And the statement “This is because three-leggedness is very unusual.” was his (poor) attempt at explaining the one-in-one-thousand figure. Something else I’ve discussed in class a few times is the difference between an explanation and an argument. I’ve made sure they understand that in these examples, the passages are always meant to be read as arguments, not explanations. Basically, an explanation is an attempt to tell why something happens or happened. An argument is an attempt to tell why one _should believe_ something happens or happened. (There’s more to it than that but that’ll do for present purposes.) You’re reading the inference as an explanation of sorts, but _if you read it as an argument_, (which my students (should) know they’re supposed to do for these examples) then it seems clear (doesn’t it?) that the first sentence is the conclusion. Admittedly, I didn’t even notice that that one could be read as an explanation. I designed some of the others with that distinction in mind, but not that particular question. Good catch. If it had said “This must be because…” instead of “this is because” it’d more plausibly read as an argument with the second sentence as the conclusion rather than the first. > [@](#): > > The bolded statement above is basically what I thought. > > When you wrote > > > [@](#): > > > > An inference is the assertion of one sentence with a rational basis to be found in another asserted sentence. > > I didn’t find that sufficient because it seems to include an explanation of a direct observation as a case of inference, with the direct observation an inferance of the explanation. > > e.g. > > “The walls of my room are blue. For you see, I painted them blue this morning.” That’s not an inference by the bolded definition. But you could argue that “I painted them blue” as a rational basis for them being blue. I’m not sure why you think this wouldn’t count as an inference by the bolded definition. The conclusion “my walls are blue” is asserted on the basis of a premise “I painted my walls blue.” That phrase, “for you see,” indicates that what follows is going to give us (an attempt at) a _rational basis_ for belief concerning what preceded. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/42 "2010-10-13T03:35:25Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > You’re inferring the later is true, but it’s not the only interpretation, and not really a reasonable one. If someone said “pizza is awesome” to me, I would interpret it as their opinion. The second sentence is just offering an explanation, as if someone had asked “Why is pizza awesome?” It’s that very fact (the fact that the second sentence is as though someone had asked “why is pizza awesome”) that marks “pizza is awesome” as a conclusion in this passage. Since the other sentence is intended to answer the (spoken or unspoken) question “Why do you believe/Why should I think the first sentence is true?” the other sentence is giving a _rational basis_ for belief regarding the first sentence. This makes the second sentence a premise, and the first sentence a conclusion. > [@](#): > > Are you really interpretting “pizza is awesome” as an inference? That the person saying that doesn’t know or have that opinion, he’s just inferring if from the presence of cheese? An inference consists, usually, when written down, two or more sentences (sometimes joined together with a conjunction, sometimes not). Note the technical definition I gave to clarify later on–and which you agreed with. An inference is a process. The record of an inference typically consists in a few sentences, one of which is a conclusion, the others of which are premises. You don’t have to lack an opinion to give an inference. You simply have to give reasons for a belief in order to be giving an inference. (Giving reasons is necessary for giving an inference, it may not be sufficient.) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/43 "2010-10-13T03:40:40Z")
So, yeah, so, for the record, here are the answers. Thought some might want to see them, since there has been discussion about particular examples. Sentences containing conclusions are highlighted in bold. 1. Kathy wasn’t in class. **She must have been sick.** 2. **You should come to class every day.** Students who don’t come to class almost never pass. 3. Carlos didn’t do his homework. **So he couldn’t have turned anything in.** 4. **Every dog has three legs.** For my dog has three legs. 5. **For every dog that has three legs, there are a thousand dogs that have four legs.** This is because three-leggedness is very unusual. 6. **Maria is probably going to become a doctor.** She spends most of her free time reading medical thrillers. 7. Doing homework is an essential part of learning the subject matter. **Students who don’t do homework are thus, to a certain degree, depriving themselves of the learning process.** 8. **This kid likes movies.** Look at all the posters in her room. 9. **Pizza is awesome.** For you see, it has cheese on it, and cheese is always good. 10. Dextrous ventricles are the best kind of ventricles. **You can be sure of that, since only dexterous ventricles can help you perambulate.** ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/44 "2010-10-13T03:58:35Z")
The answer to #10 seems backward, for the reasons you set forth in post #42. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/45 "2010-10-13T04:10:57Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The answer to #10 seems backward, for the reasons you set forth in post #42. You’re right–the first sentence should have been bolded in number 10, not the second. Sorry! ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/46 "2010-10-13T05:11:57Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > If it had said “This must be because…” instead of “this is because” it’d more plausibly read as an argument with the second sentence as the conclusion rather than the first. If it had said “For every dog that has three legs, there are a thousand dogs that have some other number of legs. This is because three-leggedness is very unusual.” it would be plausibly (sort of) read as an argument in which the first sentence was the conclusion. But it actually says “For every dog that has three legs, there are a thousand dogs that have four legs. This is because three-leggedness is very unusual.” There is no way to get the information about “four legs” from the second sentence. There is no reference at all to “four legs” in the second sentence. The natural reading is that the first sentence must be previous knowledge, and the second sentence must be the conclusion. If you know three-legged dogs are unusual, then you might conclude that three-legged animals are unusual in general. Notice that the second sentence does not mention dogs in particular. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/47 "2010-10-13T05:34:27Z")
“Good morning, Mrs. Premise.” ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/48 "2010-10-13T10:36:55Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > There is no way to get the information about “four legs” from the second sentence. There is no reference at all to “four legs” in the second sentence. That’s not relevant at all. “Clocks tell time. Therefore some unicorns are pink.” The second sentence is a conclusion, the first a premise. Yet there is no way to get the information about unicorns from the first sentence. It’s a really strange inference. It’s a bizarrely badly drawn conclusion. But it’s an inference, and the second sentence the conclusion, for all that. > [@](#): > > The natural reading is that the first sentence must be previous knowledge, and the second sentence must be the conclusion. I don’t see how that can be a natural reading given the presence of the phrase “this is because…” Like I said, if it said “This must be because…” I’d agree with you. But the more I think about this example, the more I think it can be read as an explanation rather than as an argument. I’ll probably take it out of the pool next time I give quizzes like this. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/49 "2010-10-13T16:45:23Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > > [@scifisam2009](#): > > > > ‘For’ introduces a subordinating clause, and it’s very unusual to see a subordinating clause as a sentence on its own. (‘And’ and ‘but’ are different - they introduce coordinating clauses). > > It’s not at all unusual; I see it all the time, in respectable venues. I don’t know how to cite this… Is there a way to search through Google Books for the string “. For”? Just typing in that string doesn’t seem to do the trick… It is extremely unusual. Have a flick through some textbooks or fiction or any type of writing and you’ll find hardly any subordinate clauses used as standalone sentences. I think you’re right to drop the dog question when teaching this subject; while the conclusion definitely is the part you’re saying it is, there’s too much confusing stuff in those sentences, clouding the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/50 "2010-10-13T17:03:24Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > > [@Frylock](#): > > > > It’s not at all unusual; I see it all the time, in respectable venues. I don’t know how to cite this… Is there a way to search through Google Books for the string “. For”? Just typing in that string doesn’t seem to do the trick… > > It is extremely unusual. Have a flick through some textbooks or fiction or any type of writing and you’ll find hardly any subordinate clauses used as standalone sentences. I wish there were some way to find a collection of data about this. My impression is that it can often be unobjectionable. Others’ is that it never happens. The question of who is right is empirical, but flicking through the books I have in my office is not a good way of settling that empirical question. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/51 "2010-10-13T17:34:41Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > > [@scifisam2009](#): > > > > It is extremely unusual. Have a flick through some textbooks or fiction or any type of writing and you’ll find hardly any subordinate clauses used as standalone sentences. > > I wish there were some way to find a collection of data about this. My impression is that it can often be unobjectionable. Others’ is that it never happens. The question of who is right is empirical, but flicking through the books I have in my office is not a good way of settling that empirical question. 😉 I find it unusual as well. Other than poetic writing, or maybe stylistically odd authors like Kurt Vonnegut, I can’t really think of when I’ve come across subordinate clauses as standalone sentences. It certainly strikes me as non-standard and only makes sense in a conversational tone. “Why do I have to do this?” “Because I said so. Or else you’ll be in trouble. Just do it already!” (that last one isn’t subordinate, but the first two are, right?) RS ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/52 "2010-10-13T17:37:29Z")
Also this: [The Subordinate Clause | Grammar Bytes!](http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm) and this: [Dependent clause - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_clause) and this: [Subordinate clause - definition of subordinate clause by The Free Dictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subordinate+clause) All three have the statement “subordinate clauses cannot stand alone as a sentence” or something to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/53 "2010-10-13T17:45:02Z")
I read the OP as “Most of these are examples of inferences, but only one is an example of a conclusion. Which one?” IOW, it’s an exercise in identifying inductive vs. deductive reasoning, or which second sentences follow inexorably from the first ones. (Number 7 is deductive, the others are inductive) ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/54 "2010-10-13T17:47:15Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > > [@scifisam2009](#): > > > > It is extremely unusual. Have a flick through some textbooks or fiction or any type of writing and you’ll find hardly any subordinate clauses used as standalone sentences. > > I wish there were some way to find a collection of data about this. My impression is that it can often be unobjectionable. Others’ is that it never happens. The question of who is right is empirical, but flicking through the books I have in my office is not a good way of settling that empirical question. 😉 Well, it’s not scientific enough to merit publication, but it’d work and it’d take only a few minutes. Subordinate clauses depend on the main clause for meaning, which is why it’s rare to see them used as sentences on their own - it’s a matter of linguistic logic as well as empirical observation. When it does happen, it’s mainly as a response in dialogue or as an intentionally fragmented sentence in poetry or fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/55 "2010-10-13T18:05:56Z")
> [@scifisam2009](#): > > > [@Frylock](#): > > > > I wish there were some way to find a collection of data about this. My impression is that it can often be unobjectionable. Others’ is that it never happens. The question of who is right is empirical, but flicking through the books I have in my office is not a good way of settling that empirical question. 😉 > > Well, it’s not scientific enough to merit publication, but it’d work and it’d take only a few minutes. > > Subordinate clauses depend on the main clause for meaning, which is why it’s rare to see them used as sentences on their own - it’s a matter of linguistic logic as well as empirical observation. When it does happen, it’s mainly as a response in dialogue or as an intentionally fragmented sentence in poetry or fiction. Well… not the best source but the second book I picked up had the following: “For it isn’t, either, as if he had arrived at his proposition by pursuing some line of thought which, while it is open to me, I have not in fact pursued.” That’s a translation of _On Certainty_, by Wittgenstein. It’s not formal academic writing, nor is it particularly good writing, (though it does make a lot more sense in context,) but it’s English prose, and adds a tiny bit of evidence to my claim that starting with “for” is neither forbidden nor constitutive of an incomplete sentence. Guess I’ll look for more? This seems really ridiculous. Is there really no way to search a corpus for the string “. For”? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/56 "2010-10-13T18:07:35Z")
David Armstrong quotes a Hume passage containing the construction. (Treatise Concerning Human Nature, quoted in Armstrong’s The Mind Body Problem.) But Hume’s from a few centuries ago so that may not count. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/57 "2010-10-13T18:13:12Z")
Of course the Bible, in every translation I checked including the NRSV and NIV, contains numerous instances of the construction. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/58 "2010-10-13T18:16:22Z")
Shoemaker and Swinburne’s _Personal Identity_ has the following sentence: “For on other views of the nature of personal identity it is easy to give an account of why continuity of brain and memory should be evidence of it.” (p49 of the 1989 edition.) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/59 "2010-10-13T18:34:45Z")
The 2006 novel _Strangers in the House_ has [this](http://books.google.com/books?id=7GIPCVrT4HMC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=%22for+he+hadn't+yet%22&source=bl&ots=acvf0nUO0u&sig=BP0GW99el-QRWx_yqoEyhJ-AT_k&hl=en&ei=Z_u1TLmfJYG0lQfy5LDwBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22for%20he%20hadn't%20yet%22&f=false) construction in it. I need to start doing something more productive now. But my point has been that it _does_ happen, in quality writing, that people begin sentences with “for.” I guess if I can find several cases within a half hour doing some basic google searching and book perusing, it’s likely a better empirical method would probably even further bear out my claim. And when it does happen in quality writing, that word “for” functions to indicate that what follows is going to function as a premise for a conclusion that’s probably been stated just prior to the word “for.” ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725/60 "2010-10-13T18:40:37Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The 2006 novel _Strangers in the House_ has [this](http://books.google.com/books?id=7GIPCVrT4HMC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=%22for+he+hadn't+yet%22&source=bl&ots=acvf0nUO0u&sig=BP0GW99el-QRWx_yqoEyhJ-AT_k&hl=en&ei=Z_u1TLmfJYG0lQfy5LDwBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22for%20he%20hadn't%20yet%22&f=false) construction in it. > > I need to start doing something more productive now. But my point has been that it _does_ happen, in quality writing, that people begin sentences with “for.” I guess if I can find several cases within a half hour doing some basic google searching and book perusing, it’s likely a better empirical method would probably even further bear out my claim. > > And when it does happen in quality writing, that word “for” functions to indicate that what follows is going to function as a premise for a conclusion that’s probably been stated just prior to the word “for.” The Google book you reference also has “Not yet.” and “Not quite.” Those aren’t full sentences either. If this is a test you’re giving to students, wouldn’t it be better to use standard English rather than poetic-sounding prose? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-quiz-tricky-if-so-how/556725.md?page=4)