I came across this syllogism but I can’t quite see the logic in it. I hope someone can shed some light on iit for me. In thougght the answer might be ‘a’
Pretense is to reason as
a: theory is to evidence
b: façade is to satisfaction
c: alibi is to innocence
d: error is to correction
e: discount is to purchase
I’d say alibi-is-to-innocence: it’s about trying to make something that’s not X appear to be X, where the other is X.
I was also thinking along this same line.
But then I realized too may years of watching TV and movies has left me cynical. I have come to associate an alibi as being something a criminal has falsified. But in the real world, an alibi is generally evidence of actual innocence.
Dangit, you’re right; kudos to you for thinking it through a step further than I did.
I’m going to go with (b). Not because pretense and façade have similar meaning, that would be a rookie mistake. But they know that you will be reluctant to be seen to make a rookie mistake, so they are trying to scare you away from the correct answer, which is:
Pretense has no logical relationship with reason.
Façade has no logical relationship with satisfaction.
All the other pairs have a straightforward logical relationship with one another.
Right: an alibi is evidence of innocence.
I don’t really like any of the choices, but I’d probably go with (b) too.
Oh, and it’s not a syllogism. It’s an analogy.
I think it’s a.
A pretense pretends that something is true. Reason is determining the probability of something being true.
A theory may or may not be true (except in science). Evidence is the proof and is true.
None of these is a syllogism.
Indeed. A syllogism is a logically correct argument of deductive reasoning that draws a conclusion from two premises with three terms, one of them shared by the two premises. There’s a limited number of valid syllogism patterns, which have traditional names in Western logic (Barbara, Celarent, Camestros etc.). The sentences such as the ones here, of the “X is to Y as A is to B” sort often found in IQ tests, are analogies.
I agree with you that (b) is the right answer, but not precisely for the reasons you state.
Yes, the others have a straightforward logical relationship, but not the same relationship. In (a), a theory is established from evidence, but the parallel in (c) is backwards – innocence is established from an alibi, not the other way around.
(d) and (e) each have their own logical relationships, different yet again.
That leaves (b) as the odd man out. One could argue, as you did, that the commonality with the analogy posed is that neither one describes a logical relationship. Actually, I tend to see them both as having a tenuous relationship which, when it exists, tends to have a negative correlation. Someone whose actions are motivated by pretension is the opposite of someone who is motivated by reason. Someone whose outward character is a façade tends to be the opposite of someone whose life is satisfying, content, and happy.
IOW, in those contexts, “pretense” and “façade” both imply fake superficial traits, whereas “reason” and “satisfaction” both carry the implication of being genuine.
Either way, (b) is uniquely different from the other examples.
I agree with Waldo Pepper on option (c). A pretense is claiming to have a reason, and an alibi is claiming to have innocence.
My answer was obviously tongue in cheek. I imagine there is supposed to be some kind of logical relationship between pretense and reason, but I don’t see anything beyond the tenuous negative relationship that you suggest.
But as already pointed out, a pretense is a false claim, whereas an alibi is not.
I think the “answer” is probably that this is just a very poor question.
It depends on the purpose of whatever test this thing might appear on. A question having no clearly good answers, but where some are more justifiable than others, is sometimes a good test of a person’s reasoning skills. The quality of the options here may well be rated from “best” to “worst”.
Maybe I’m biased by reading old books where “pretend” is used as a synonym for “claim” (as opposed to “claim falsely”) or by French where the verb “pretendre” just means “claim”. But that’s my take on it.
So do I; but I’m not at all sure that it’s the answer that whoever came up with that question is looking for. People who write these things rarely seem to be thinking like that.
Unfortunately, my test-taking skills, which grew to involve a whole lot of being able to tell what answer would be marked correct even when I disagreed with it, are failing me here. I don’t know what answer they’re after.
I’m inclined however to suggest that they’re after d, “error is to correction”, under the theory that a pretense is presumably incorrect, but they probably think of “reason” as being correct, and so think that reason will correct the error of the pretense.
Ok, so (e) is the only one left without a taker?
(e) is correct, because it’s the only answer where both words contain the letter “s”.
To be fair, I think an alibi can be a false claim, which would mean that you could maybe make a tortured argument that it mirrors the definition of pretense as “a claim made or implied, especially one not supported by fact” — or “a claim, especially a false or ambitious one.” But that still seems like a big stretch.
Interestingly, when I just now tried googling it, the only thing that came up was “Pretense is to reason as A) theory is to evidence. B) façade is to appearance. C) alibi is to innocence. D) error is to correction. E) discount is to purchase.”
This is better, and obviously (B) is the intended answer. It’s still not great, though.
I think this would be still better:
Excuse is to reason
as
Façade is to appearance
An excuse is something superficial or deceptive purporting to be a genuine reason. So this is better than pretense. Although a pretense is deceptive, it is not usually a false reason, it is a false claim or a false appearance.
Huh?
Facade and appearance are basically the same thing. Pretence is not the same thing as reason. B is the one I’d definitely rule out, there.
Facade has two meanings. The second one being:
“an outward appearance that is maintained to conceal a less pleasant or creditable reality” (Oxford)