Also, a problem with your airport runway question is that whether answer B could be correct or not would be dependent on the amount of time it takes to land an airplane, and how many runways the airport has. For example, if the airport has 2 runways and it takes 2 minutes to land the plane, then an airplane would need to be landing on each runway at any given time. Whereas if the airport has 60 runways, it is highly unlikely that two planes would be landing on adjacent runways at the same time. So some information is missing from your scenario to be able to uniquely identify an answer (the number of runways, and the duration of time it takes to land).
That's the point of the question. All of the answers are consistent with his statement. You are supposed to find the one that is "best supported". You've just shown that B isn't very well supported by the statement.
In real life, there is a limit on how many times paper can be recycled. Each times, you get a worse quality product (think newspaper as opposed to a high-quality printer paper).
Another thing is that it takes a lot of work to make cards all of similar power levels. Every card that could be playable in a competitive deck has to be tested. If a set has 150 cards that need to be tested, that's going to take way longer than if a set only has 30 cards that need to be tested. All the terrible cards are pretty much blank for the purposes of testing.
Making cards all of the same power level also uses up design space faster, which means you have to make the cards more complicated. Most of the cards that are strictly worse than another card are vanilla. In order to make cards comparable but different, you quickly have to start giving them different abilities. That makes the game more complicated, and complicated card games do not sell as well.
Basically, it all comes down to selling the game. You need to have chase rares so that people buy packs, you need to have 150 cards per set because you need to sell more cards, and you can't make the game too complicated. If you look at a game with a different distribution model, like a board game with cards (say Race for the Galaxy or Seasons) you find that the cards are a lot more comparable. Or, if you look at a game like Star Wars CCG which is out of print but being maintained by the players, there are less cards per set (about 30) because they don't have to sell cards, but each card is closer in power level than in Magic.
I think the key is understanding why things are true. Before moving on to new things, you need to have a really solid understanding of how things work, and an intuition for what things should be true. I think a good test of whether you understand something is that you can describe the proof in a sentence or two and have that contain all of the relevant information (i.e., you could reproduce the proof from that sentence without getting stuck).
I believe that the majority of students pass the Berkeley prelim before taking any classes, so that's probably a pretty good measure of where you should be.
One problem with punishing false accusations is that it could cause the person who made the accusation to never admit it. That would mean that anyone who is falsely convicted of rape would be more likely to actually serve out their entire sentence.
The issue is this line here, which is really the content of the whole argument:
If a person were to see the rock with the future on it, it is conceivable that they are a person who does the opposite of whatever they see on a rock.
One of you is claiming that for this particular rock which predicts the future, the person would be unable to do the opposite of what it says by virtue of the rock's properties. The other is claiming that the person would be able to do the opposite, and hence such a rock cannot exist.
Whether or not the person can do the opposite boils down to "can someone do the opposite of a prophecy?" which is the whole question in the first place.
So the argument is never going to convince someone who doesn't already agree.
Then show me all the Paralympic runners (who mostly have the same equipment as Pistorius) beating Olympic times.
That's what it boils down to. Take the best runners in the world on blades and compare them to the best runners in the world on feet. The dudes on feet still have a huge advantage by the numbers.
There are also a lot more people who are not amputees then people who are amputees, so this would be expected.
Star Wars CCG is a hundred times more complex than Magic is. If you say it isn't you obviously haven't played it to any extent. As somebody else pointed out...a lot of people didn't like Star Wars because it WAS so complex.
One of the biggest advantages SWCCG and a lot of other games have is that you see a lot more cards over the course of the game. In many games of Magic, about half of the cards you see are from your starting hand, whereas in a lot of other games, you see most of your deck. That gives you more options (i.e. more interesting to play) and it means that there are a lot more cards on the table.
But the complexity does mean that there is a huge barrier to entry, and that new players will lose every game. But on the other side, the people looking for an excellent game will like it a lot (there are still a bunch of people playing SWCCG 10 years after it went out of print: http://www.starwarsccg.org). Would that happen with Magic? But Magic makes a lot more money, and has way more players, because it is more accessible. NWO is just moving Magic more in that direction.
I will point out that the use of "God bless" in the song is not simply a single phrase.
God bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her,
Through the night with the light from above.
These lines are all referring to God, and asking him to guide America. So the song does not simply use the words "God bless" as a phrase that has become divorced from its religious beginnings, but is actually speaking to God. I really don't see the difference between these lines and a prayer.
Someone mentioned that colleges don't exploit their students in other fields, just sports. Well actually they do. All those patents research universities hold, they were worked on and developed by students. The school and the teachers take everything from the accomplishments of the students. Its not just sports colleges have this idea that any accomplishment of the student belongs to the school and the student should be happy that they've been given the chance to toil under the great teacher/coach.
Research universities don't hold patents. Individual professors hold patents. This is a very important part of universities, and is part of what differentiates them from companies; work belongs to the people who do the work, not to the university.
If a particular professor is claiming someone else's work as his own, then that is taken very seriously as an issue of academic integrity.
I agree with both parties here. Universities are making millions off of kids, while only giving them the bare minimum in return. I don't think that universities should be able to sell jerseys etc. If you get an academic scholarship, the school foots the bill because it will bring them prestige. They're not profiting off of it. I don't see why sports scholarships should be different.
Universities are in the business of academics, so having prestige in academic fields is desirable in its own right - remember that universities are full of academics, so making a profit tends to not be the main motivation. Universities don't set goals of becoming more profitable, they set goals like "be in the top x universities in the world."
Competitive sports are a necessary evil which provide funding and encourage alumni donations that allow the university to accomplish its real goals.
There are people in my state on 5,6 and 7 DUIs and been forced to go to AA after every arrest. What do you do with those people?
Then clearly in this case forcing people to go to AA is not "proven to work effectively." LogicX asked whether, in the hypothetical situation in which it was effective, whether we should give also give people jail time. The answer is still no.
In practice, it is possible that forcing people to go to AA is the most effective in reducing drunk driving for the majority of the population. Then maybe you would do something like AA for the first offense, and larger consequences afterwards.
That's the point of the question. All of the answers are consistent with his statement. You are supposed to find the one that is "best supported". You've just shown that B isn't very well supported by the statement.
Making cards all of the same power level also uses up design space faster, which means you have to make the cards more complicated. Most of the cards that are strictly worse than another card are vanilla. In order to make cards comparable but different, you quickly have to start giving them different abilities. That makes the game more complicated, and complicated card games do not sell as well.
Basically, it all comes down to selling the game. You need to have chase rares so that people buy packs, you need to have 150 cards per set because you need to sell more cards, and you can't make the game too complicated. If you look at a game with a different distribution model, like a board game with cards (say Race for the Galaxy or Seasons) you find that the cards are a lot more comparable. Or, if you look at a game like Star Wars CCG which is out of print but being maintained by the players, there are less cards per set (about 30) because they don't have to sell cards, but each card is closer in power level than in Magic.
I believe that the majority of students pass the Berkeley prelim before taking any classes, so that's probably a pretty good measure of where you should be.
You have to strike a balance between punishing enough to stop as many people from possible from doing it, and not too much that no one ever admits it.
One of you is claiming that for this particular rock which predicts the future, the person would be unable to do the opposite of what it says by virtue of the rock's properties. The other is claiming that the person would be able to do the opposite, and hence such a rock cannot exist.
Whether or not the person can do the opposite boils down to "can someone do the opposite of a prophecy?" which is the whole question in the first place.
So the argument is never going to convince someone who doesn't already agree.
There are also a lot more people who are not amputees then people who are amputees, so this would be expected.
One of the biggest advantages SWCCG and a lot of other games have is that you see a lot more cards over the course of the game. In many games of Magic, about half of the cards you see are from your starting hand, whereas in a lot of other games, you see most of your deck. That gives you more options (i.e. more interesting to play) and it means that there are a lot more cards on the table.
But the complexity does mean that there is a huge barrier to entry, and that new players will lose every game. But on the other side, the people looking for an excellent game will like it a lot (there are still a bunch of people playing SWCCG 10 years after it went out of print: http://www.starwarsccg.org). Would that happen with Magic? But Magic makes a lot more money, and has way more players, because it is more accessible. NWO is just moving Magic more in that direction.
God bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her,
Through the night with the light from above.
These lines are all referring to God, and asking him to guide America. So the song does not simply use the words "God bless" as a phrase that has become divorced from its religious beginnings, but is actually speaking to God. I really don't see the difference between these lines and a prayer.
And prayers in public school are bad.
Research universities don't hold patents. Individual professors hold patents. This is a very important part of universities, and is part of what differentiates them from companies; work belongs to the people who do the work, not to the university.
If a particular professor is claiming someone else's work as his own, then that is taken very seriously as an issue of academic integrity.
Universities are in the business of academics, so having prestige in academic fields is desirable in its own right - remember that universities are full of academics, so making a profit tends to not be the main motivation. Universities don't set goals of becoming more profitable, they set goals like "be in the top x universities in the world."
Competitive sports are a necessary evil which provide funding and encourage alumni donations that allow the university to accomplish its real goals.
Then clearly in this case forcing people to go to AA is not "proven to work effectively." LogicX asked whether, in the hypothetical situation in which it was effective, whether we should give also give people jail time. The answer is still no.
In practice, it is possible that forcing people to go to AA is the most effective in reducing drunk driving for the majority of the population. Then maybe you would do something like AA for the first offense, and larger consequences afterwards.