Can a small fairy be serious and smart?

[some_one]

data:
fairies are small and smart.
a creature is not smart,unless it's not serious.
fairies are serious.

what answer is not possible
1.a small and serious fairy
2.a smart creature which is not a fairy
3.a small creature which is not serious
4.a serious creature which is not a large and smart creature

i don't know why they chose 1
as the correct answer
??

 

[DaveC426913]

data:
fairies are small and smart.
a creature is not smart,unless it's not serious.
fairies are serious.

what answer is not possible
1.a small and serious fairy
2.a smart creature which is not a fairy
3.a small creature which is not serious
4.a serious creature which is not a large and smart creature

i don't know why they chose 1
as the correct answer
??

1 could not possibly be the correct answer, since those two properties of fairies are given.

 

[DaveC426913]

I lie. It is 1.

Fairies are a contradiction.

By (1), they're Smart. (within blue and green)
But, by (2), if it's Smart, it has to be Serious (blue is within red)

So, answer 1a proposes a fairy that is inside Smart (blue), but outside Not Serious (red) (because (3) fairies are serious)

Heh. Conclusion: Fairies don't exist. Clever.

 

[some_one]

can you please post a link to your attached photo
because
i was told that i am not privileged to view it

 

[some_one]

i was told also that fairies are serious
why didnt you maked this in the graph
there should be a fairy dot in a serious circle

why didnt you do it?

 

[DaveC426913]

can you please post a link to your attached photo
because
i was told that i am not privileged to view it

Neither am I. It's a bug.

You can view the pic by looging out and then viewing it.

 

[DaveC426913]

i was told also that fairies are serious
why didnt you maked this in the graph
there should be a fairy dot in a serious circle

why didnt you do it?

The point is that there is no where that one can put a dot that represents fairies.

No single point can satisfy all given criteria.

 

[some_one]

so this questions has an error in it

 

[daveb]

Not true. The data only says that all dumb (not smart) creatures are also playful (not serious). It says nothing about smart creatures. They can be serious or playful. Now, if there are supposed to be some "All" somewhere in the data, then that's a different story.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not true. The data only says that all dumb (not smart) creatures are also playful (not serious).

That's not quite what it says.

It says nothing about smart creatures. They can be serious or playful. Now, if there are supposed to be some "All" somewhere in the data, then that's a different story.

Well, let's see if we can get the set diagram correct. Do you see any flaws in mine?

 

[davee123]

So, there's arguably no actual error in the question-- although you could argue that there is. I like the playful/serious and dumb/smart comparisons since they simplify the wording. That is, "not smart" == "dumb", and "not serious" == "playful". See how it affects the ease of understanding in the puzzle:

1. fairies are small and smart.
2. a creature is dumb, unless it's playful.
3. fairies are serious.

Now it's much easier to untangle the logic in #2. It's saying that ALL serious creatures are necessarily dumb. The only way a creature can avoid being dumb is by being playful. Now look at fairies. They're supposedly smart and serious! But if #2 is correct, then a fairy goes against the rule. Hence, the implication is that there's no such thing as fairies-- if fairies don't exist, then no rules are broken. Fairies might as well be small and big, or smart and dumb. Since none exist, there's arguably no contradiction.

DaveE

 

[some_one]

thank i understood that