From pycyn@aol.com Fri Apr 26 06:24:09 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 26 Apr 2002 13:24:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 41875 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 13:24:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2002 13:24:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 13:24:08 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.85.1ab01339 (4533) for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <85.1ab01339.29faaeed@aol.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:23:57 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] So you think you're logical? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_85.1ab01339.29faaeed_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14122 --part1_85.1ab01339.29faaeed_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/2002 5:52:21 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > The question would be whether the results would be better if the > problem was presented in Lojban, where presumably this particular > connective is more transparent. And what would happen if the > problems were worded in English something like: > > "The rule governing the production of the cards states that a > card either doesn't have a circle on one side, or it has the > colour yellow on the other." I expect that this would have worse results, if possible. My students always found "or" even harder to read, partly -- as daniyl notes -- because of the XOR reading (not actually as common as one might think, but dominating in our thoughts) and partly because we just don't use "or" all that much in reasoning -- and certainly not with a "not" thrown in. --part1_85.1ab01339.29faaeed_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/2002 5:52:21 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


The question would be whether the results would be better if the
problem was presented in Lojban, where presumably this particular
connective is more transparent. And what would happen if the
problems were worded in English something like:

"The rule governing the production of the cards states that a
card either doesn't have a circle on one side, or it has the
colour yellow on the other."


I expect that this would have worse results, if possible.  My students always found "or" even harder to read, partly -- as daniyl notes -- because of the XOR reading (not actually as common as one might think, but dominating in our thoughts) and partly because we just don't use "or" all that much in reasoning -- and certainly not with a "not" thrown in. --part1_85.1ab01339.29faaeed_boundary--