Efinitive Brainlet test

All hipsters are annoying implies that some hipsters are annoying retarded test.

All hipsters are annoying, not just a few.

It didn't specify whether or not the rest of the kites are in flight. It's easy to assume that they are, but if they were the question would have said as much.

This, but with me for being too fast.
Spitting warnings n shit.

Keeps 404ing halfway through the test

If someone says "all unicorns are horses" then that doesn't mean that "some unicorns are horses" because then "some" includes that it at least exists. And unicorns don't.

>doesn't imply some kites are in flight
of course it does. That's exactly what it implies.

^look at this idiot

No it doesn't. It says some kites are NOT in flight. This doesn't imply that the remaining ones are in flight.

Fucking brainlet

No, it doesn't. The question didn't give you that information. The other kites might be sitting in your garage or in a dumpster somewhere. You don't know whether or not other kites are in flight unless the argument says so. More importantly, this isn't really the purpose of the question/test- you're given a set of premises and have to find out whether or not the argument follows from the given information.

>a brainlet b8 thread attracted *actual* brainlets

Huurrr kites in my garage and dumpster are not not in flight. Yes, actually they are not in flight. Give me one fucking other state of being that a kite can be, if it's not not in flight.

I'll wait.

>he actually thinks this is the entire point

>he's actual too much of a brainlet to apply his scientific knowledge to a question.
Question was made by humans. Humans operate in the physical universe. Therefore i am completely permitted to make this deduction.

Ready the description at the beginning of the test.

>I've been out philosophized

All poseurs are annoying
All hipsters are poseurs
Therefore, some hipsters are annoying

Invalid (see A Quick Note, right column)

You incorrectly responded valid.

this is bullshit. some was never specified as an uniqueness quantifier

What are you going on about? All is much more accurate than some if all hipsters are annoying.

...

it's not about accuracy. it's whether it follows from the premise, which both do.

All hipsters are annoying, each and every one of them, not just one or two, all of them.

You're wrong. The website even explains its logic:

>The Existential Fallacy occurs whenever a particular conclusion appears with two universal premises (for example, All M are P, All S are M, Therefore, some S are P).

>It's a fallacy because universal statements do not imply members of a class exist, whereas particular statements do. Arguably, though, categorical syllogisms that are invalid on these grounds can be seen as conditionally valid - that is, their validity is conditional upon the existence of the particular under consideration.

In other words, the inference is valid IF there are in fact any hipsters. Your talk about "some" not being a correct answer when a statement applies to all is incorrect.

It's also worth observing:

>0.31% of people get this syllogism right.

Most people interpret the syllogism as implicitly assuming that the classes in question do in fact have members. The inference is wrong only in the degenerate case that the classes are empty. I got it wrong as well.

Yes, the website says that I'm right. Are you baiting me?

just make a ven diagram

These explanations are wrong. If All hipsters are annoying, and hipsters exist, then some hipsters are annoying.

Your explanation is incorrect--you said:

>All is much more accurate than some if all hipsters are annoying.

and

>All hipsters are annoying, each and every one of them, not just one or two, all of them.

But this is NOT why the syllogism is invalid, because (given that at least one hipster exists), All hipsters are annoying -> Some hipsters are annoying is a correct inference.

The mistake is assuming at least one hipster does in fact exist. Your reasoning is incorrect.

Nice