http://www.christianlogic.com/news/ Since 1999 we've published the "What's the Fallacy in the News?" We continue to send out short lessons on logic and fallacies that we find in the news and everyday life. en hansbluedorn@gmail.com Copyright 2008 2008-06-17T18:13:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/simple-red-herring/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/simple-red-herring/#When:17:13:00Z Toby asks . . . We have used some of your logic texts but have encountered an informal argument we thought may be a fallacy not covered in the books. We name it after the kid who uses it. A certain camper wore the same t-shirt all week. When my Dear Husband, his counselor, told him on Thursday to change shirt, his reply was, “Why? This shirt was fine on Monday - you had no complaints on Tuesday - no problems on Wednesday, and now all of a sudden you are saying something is wrong with it?” Is there a name for this fallacy we just are not catching? Answer Toby, Your camper might be committing a simple red herring fallacy. This is when somebody introduces something irrelevant into an argument. While your husband does agree with this camper that his shirt was okay on previous days, this avoids your husband’s argument that the accumulation of grime has reached the point today when his shirt is a hindrance to good social interaction. Hans Questions & Answers 2008-06-17T17:13:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/is-learning-logic-the-solution-to-this-problem/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/is-learning-logic-the-solution-to-this-problem/#When:17:33:00Z “My grandson seems to have a problem making decisions . . . even what to eat for dinner. When shopping, he cannot decide if he should buy an item, and asks for my opinion, even for what I think he should buy. I thought if he could learn logic, it would give him the mental ability to weigh pros and cons and make a decision on his own. I think he’s afraid to make a decision, therefore he avoids the task. Or he may be afraid of making the “wrong” decision even when there is no right or wrong in the deciding? He is the youngest of the three children, and the only boy. Even at the age of 12 he still cannot decide. I have reviewed your website and wonder if these exercises (games, etc.) will help. Truly, Ann” Ann, It sounds like he needs more courage and confidence than logic. How is he spending his time? Maybe he needs to do things that challenge him. A few years ago, a friend took us to a local cave. We didn’t know it then, but after crawling around in dark, tight passages for a day, our life had begun to change. Since then, we have taken up caving, skiing, rock climbing, mountain climbing, mountain biking, and motorcycling. Doing these sports has taught us a lot about how to act under stressful situations, how to make clear decisions, and how to face what we fear. Check out our article “Logic of Adventure” at http://www.aisforadventure.org. Questions & Answers 2008-02-18T17:33:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/cs-lewis-and-the-either-or-fallacy/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/cs-lewis-and-the-either-or-fallacy/#When:17:31:00Z Letter from Carter Askren Hi. A professor of critical thinking was telling me that C.S. Lewis’ comment to the effect of, “either Jesus was who he said he was or he was a liar or a lunatic,” is a false dichotomy and therefore illogical. I disagree, but can’t really articulate why. Liar or lunatic do seem like reasonable possibilities, but I suppose one could try to make the argument that C.S Lewis was mistaken and that could be another possibility. If false dichotomy is the presentation of conclusions that may not necessarily be all of the possible conclusions, then perhaps that was what the professor was trying to argue? I disagree with the idea that Jesus was mistaken, but I was trying to understand how someone might argue that such a statement from Jesus was illogical. And then, of course, we can remember that we are to be “fools for Christ” and that may mean standing by a position even when it is not popular--or “logical.” Thank you for your help. Carter, In “Mere Christianity” C.S. Lewis says, “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” When interpreting what someone ways – like C.S. Lewis – it is best to interpret them in the best possible light. It is likely that Lewis understood that an alternative to “liar or lunatic” was “mistaken.” Lewis’ likely intention in this paragraph from “Mere Christianity” was to point out that this third alternative, “Jesus was a wise but mistaken human being,” is not reasonable given that Jesus claimed to be God. Lewis wasn’t committing an “either-or” fallacy because he addresses the alternatives, and rejects them. An either-or fallacy ignores the alternatives. Questions & Answers 2007-12-13T17:31:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/logic-q-a-2/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/logic-q-a-2/#When:21:59:00Z Contents 1. Quiz answer 2. Fallacy Detective Test 3. Logic activities for younger students 4. Predicate calculus 5. Formal logic 6. Creating a formal logic book Quiz Answers The correct answer to last time’s quiz was the fallacy “post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc” or sometimes called “false cause.” Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc is when someone concludes that since A happened before B, then A must have caused B. this fallacy also occurs when somebody says that since A and B are commonly seen together, one must have caused the other. The researchers in the article notice that murder rates, abortion, promiscuity and suicide are higher in the United States, which is a more religious nation than most European nations that have both a lower crime rate and a lower church going population. The researchers then conclude that since more religion is seen with higher crime rates etc., the religion must have caused the crime. Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc. The quiz was won by Carter Askren, who will receive a Fallacy Detective T-shirt. Hans Bluedorn ------------------------ Do homeschool parents qualified as "teachers" for your Fallacy Detective test? I read a post from a lady in a homeschool board, where she mentioned that "to her" using the Thinking Tool Box BEFORE the Fallacy Detective was better...is there an specific, necessary order to obtain the best results from your products? Yolanda Yolanda, Yes, we will send The Fallacy Detective Test to homeschool parents. However, since the test is copyrighted, you must send us a request for it in order to receive it. You are not allowed to reproduce it except for you own homeschool/class. We recommend parents use The Fallacy Detective before The Thinking Toolbox. However, this is not necessary. We believe TFD is easier than TTT. Hans Bluedorn ------------------------ Re:  logic activities for younger students I’ve used products from the Tinman Press for several years now with early and late elementary age children.  While most of their products would work well in the classroom, they can also be used individually.   www.tinmanpress.com   The kids love the activities, and they really are great logic-building activities. I’ve also used lots of materials from the Critical Thinking Company.  Their web site is searchable by grade level.  http://www.brightminds.us/home/products.   I saw that some families recommended using the Mind Benders, and they are good.  But there are lots more materials available for younger folks. Anni Welborne West Lafayette, IN ------------------------ Hans and Nathanial, I was wondering if you could tell me what predicate calculus is?  What type of logic is it?  I know of someone who is using her training in this subject (she took a class) to make herself into an expert on everything in life. Help please! Anne Calvert Anne, Predicate calculus is an advanced form of modern symbolic logic. If your friend says that she knows more than you do because she knows logic, then she is fooling herself. Logic should teach humility. People with good thinking skills know they are not smarter than other people. If she knows this advanced form of logic, she should be able to translate all her new ideas into something you can understand. If she can't translate things into something that convinces you, then her advanced form of logic is useless. What is the difference between someone with such incredibly DEEP thoughts that we can't understand them, and someone with incredibly CONFUSED thoughts that we can't understand? Nathaniel ------------------------ Dear Logic Guys, Logic is a required class in the classical christian school my daughter attends. Logic instruction begins in seventh grade. This current class is working through Douglas Wilson's workbook Intro to Logic. At this point a few students are riding through, my daughter is not. I find this text and the language and concepts to be difficult. How do young students wrap their brains around these concepts? Any suggestions? Which of your materials would best complement the Wilson text? Thank you, Cynthia Brandon Cynthia, We suggest using Wilson and Nance's "Introduction to Logic" (which teaches formal logic) at age sixteen or seventeen. Some younger students handle it if they have a knowledgeable teacher to answer their questions and guide them. There is no hurry about logic. It is more important that students learn to enjoy logic and thinking skills and that they understand what they are learning. You can think of formal logic as being about as difficult as geometry. If the first thing a student learns in math is geometry, he may feel overwhelmed. It may be easier to start with something less challenging that beginners can have fun with. Nathaniel ------------------------ Are you planning to write a formal logic book? We are starting to use Introductory Logic by Wilson and Nance.We are enjoying it, but my son loves your books even more!! Thank you. Becky. Mexico City. Becky, We aren’t planning a formal logic book right now. However, we are thinking about creating a Fallacy Detective video. What do you think about that idea? Questions & Answers 2005-10-13T21:59:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/logic-q-a-logic-contest/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/logic-q-a-logic-contest/#When:21:58:00Z Here are some questions we have received. If you have any questions about our books, The Fallacy Detective and The Thinking Toolbox, or about anything else vaguely related to logic, critical thinking, or even just thinking, reply to this email. -------------------- Hello, This is our first full year of homeschooling. We have a 4-year-old son, a 6-year-old son, a 7.5-year-old daughter and a 9-year-old daughter. We are following the Trivium Pursuit classical style. Recently I read that young children are lacking logic. I noticed on your site the recommended ages are 13 +. In your opinion, would it be helpful (or harmful) to play "logic" games, or read one of your books to our children? Also, a friend of mine is visiting and she is interested in your books. Could you offer us some suggestions? They have a 13 yo son, 15 yo son, 10 yo daughter, and 7 yo daughter. They will begin their first year of homeschooling all four children next month. Mrs. Teschendorf is wondering what logic program/book you would recommend for them. Would it be best to use The Fallacy Detective or The Thinking Toolbox with the boys and 10 yo daughter, or use it together as a family and allow the 7 yo to learn as her mind is capable? Sincerely, Julie Julie, As a general rule, we recommend not starting logic until around age 12 or 13. This is because we think at that age children are best able to handle the abstract concepts. This isn’t to say that some 10 or 11-year-olds won’t get a lot out of studying it. We just offer 12 or 13 as a general rule. Before age 13 we recommend using the Building Thinking Skills books put out by Critical Thinking Press. These books are good for developing good pre-logic stage spatial and verbal thinking skills. I’d recommend reading The Fallacy Detective as a family. Younger children can learn better if they’re in a family setting where everyone is discussing what they’re learning. When you’re done with The Fallacy Detective, you might take a look at The Thinking Toolbox. Hans Bluedorn -------------------- What logic text would you recommend for an eclectic group of six to ten high school homeschoolers in our Christian homeschool co-op? I've downloaded info & Lesson 12 from The Thinking Toolbox. I like that it has pictures, plain understandable text, & relevant examples. The Table of Contents looks organized into an easily useable plan. Chris Chris, I'm a little biased, but I'd recommend The Fallacy Detective to start kids off. Hans Bluedorn -------------------- I was planning to use The Fallacy Detective with a co-op class of 13-15-year-olds.  Based on an opinion I read on a homeschool chat board, I wonder if I should begin with The Thinking Toolbox first and then follow-up with The Fallacy Detective?  I would appreciate any advice you can give me Judy Judy, We think The Fallacy Detective is easier and the principles are more basic. So, we vote for doing it first. Nathaniel -------------------- Hello, I am planning on introducing our 12-year-old daughter to logic more formally. I have read through your booklet, "Learning Logic at Home" and have purchased the following: 1. Building Thinking Skills 3, Figural. 2. Building Thinking Skills 3, Verbal. 3. The Fallacy Detective. 4. The Thinking Toolbox. I am planning on working through these in this order. My questions are: 1. Any concerns about this ordering and the pacing? (e.g., is this 1 year/2years worth of material?) 2. I have the teaching manuals with the "Building Thinking Skills Books" but was wondering about some articles or suggestions for using your two books. Bill Bill, Do Building Thinking Skills 3, Verbal for one year, and then do The Fallacy Detective the next year. If you have time the second year, do The Thinking Toolbox also. There's no hurry. It's more important that your daughter understand fully and enjoy the process than it is to get though the books. You've got many years to work though these books and other books. Nathaniel -------------------- Hi, Bluedorn!!! I am very excited in learning Logic this way. I am interested to understand logic how to answer the student's questions logically, and I want to know nowadays students' mind. My question is, if the person is like me, isn't smart in math and logic (I failed it when I was in the university), is possible to teach it? Farida, Denmark Farida, The logic in our books The Fallacy Detective and The Thinking Toolbox is not mathematical logic. It is verbal logic. It deals with language and how people use language. If you had trouble with math or formal "math" logic, you actually might find informal logic much more fun. Nathaniel -------------------- Hello! My name is Sherry Joslin and I am now a 3rd year teacher of logic at Covenant Academy in Houston. I frequently read your logic site and incorporate your books into my 7th and 8th grade classes. My simple question is this: Is Material Logic the same as Informal Logic? And are jr high students encouraged to use the discussion board? Thank you, Sherry Sherry, Anyone is encouraged to use the discussion board. Material logic is not the same as informal logic. Material logic is similar to epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy dealing with how people know what they know, how they sense the world, how they view divine revelation, etc. Informal logic deals more with practical logic, how to diagram an argument, detecting logical fallacies, etc. Our two books fall into the category of informal logic. Nathaniel -------------------- I am teaching an upper grade Speech class within a Home Schooling setting. I'll have between 5 & 9 students. My background is 20+ years teaching in Christian schools, mostly in the elementary classrooms. Is logic to thinking and speaking like phonics is to reading or grammar is to writing? Often phonics and grammar are taught in isolated settings but really their only purpose is within the field of applied language arts. This is a poor analogy, but I'm thinking that as I set up my Speech class I want the learning of Logic and even apologetics to be included. Can this be woven together? Help. What ideas do you have regarding this? Could be I'm all wet in my thinking. What is your opinion? Chris Chris, All school subjects are interrelated. The reason school is divided into subjects, instead of just having one giant amorphous "subject," is to make teaching more manageable. Speech and apologetics and logic are separate subjects, but they are related. Nathaniel -------------------- Hello, Isn’t logic just about people with a lot of opinions arguing with each other? Carl Carl, One of the most important parts of learning logic, and critical thinking skills, is knowing when you don’t have enough information to form an opinion on a particular subject. This condition occurs much more often than some people seem to think. During such times, it is probably a good idea to shut up and not let your ignorance be known. Hans Bluedorn -------------------- What Fallacy have you found in the news? What fallacy is in the following article? The 15th person to guess what it is will receive a free Fallacy Detective T-shirt (http://www.christianlogic.com/products/). Just reply back naming the fallacy, or fallacies, with definitions. The Times September 27, 2005 Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side' By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today. According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems. It compares the social performance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, . . .But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills. The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. “The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.” Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions. He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy. The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr. Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.” “The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.” To read the entire article, go to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2-1798944%2C00.html Questions & Answers 2005-10-04T21:58:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/lord-laudmoore-the-solution/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/lord-laudmoore-the-solution/#When:21:57:00Z Last time, if you will remember, Constable Blakely was just showing Constable Dobson a dinner jacket he had found in the bushes . . . it had a bullet hole in it. Q: Do you have any suggestions for Constable Dobson? “Check the dinner jacket for fingerprints to determine who it belonged to.”--David Daudelin, Logic Loop reader CONSTABLE BLAKELY: I don’t believe that will be necessary. As you can see, this is a tailor made dinner jacket. The laundry label says: “D. McLure.” In the Last Logic Loop, I asked you to give me your theory for what happened, as well as your suggestion for what Constable Dobson should do next. “I think that McLure and Laudmoore were trying to shoot each other. First of all, there was a dinner jacket with bullet holes found in the bushes. Also, they might have gotten into an argument because the Lord wanted to buy McLure's figurine, but McLure did not want to sell it to him. Bullets were found from different revolvers. The Constable should find out if McLure owns a gun.”--Curt Hayashida Good advice. Constable Dobson then went to talk to David McLure again. CONSTABLE DOBSON: It was you who shot Lord Laudmoore last night, wasn’t it? DAVID McLURE: Yes, I suppose it’s useless to hide it anymore. I shot him. But it was in self defense. You see, if I had not shot the Lord last night, I feel sure that I would be dead now, instead of him. The man was about to kill me. CONSTABLE DOBSON: You will have to tell me what happened. DAVID McLURE: Yes, I will tell you everything that happened. The Story of David McLure My story starts last week when I was at an art auction. Lately I have been collecting small figurines, and I went there to further my collection. That is where I met Lord Laudmoore. When he heard that I had some small figurines, he offered to show me his collection, which he said was at his house. He also sounded most interested in seeing one particular object that I had: a figurine called “Pinocchio.” So I drove up to his country house for this purpose. That was yesterday evening. There was another man there, a Dr. Radcliff. I do not know his first name. Upon arriving, we had dinner, and afterwards, Lord Laudmoore asked to see the figurine I had brought. I unwrapped it from a cloth and set it upon the table. Dr. Radcliff, a large man with a rather brooding look about him, sat in his chair and smoked his cigar. He didn’t seem interested. Lord Laudmoore, on the other hand, became most agitated. He walked around the table to see it more closely. I could tell by his manner that he was excited. Lord Laudmoore said, “I will pay you a lot of money for this.” He offered me several times what I had paid for it myself. As you may know, a collector buys, but never sells. And so I had no intention of bargaining with him. And besides, the whole situation seemed a bit funny to me. Lord Laudmoore had said he was also a collector, but he seemed to have no interest in the artistic qualities of my Pinocchio figurine. He just wanted it. So I refused to sell. After that, he sat in his chair for a moment, with a moody look. I now know he was hatching a plan. He rose and went into the kitchen, then returned and abruptly told Dr. Radcliff that it was about time he left. Dr. Radcliff was taken aback a bit, but seemed to take this rudeness fairly well. After the departure of Dr. Radcliff, Lord Laudmoore commenced showing me about the house. His collection of figurines wasn’t very large, nor impressive. Everything was very dirty, and there were many broken figurines lying about. The whole situation seemed strange. He talked a long while about each figurine he had, mostly at random and repeating himself often. It seemed as though he was trying to waste time. While talking, he would frequently go over and glance out the window. Once he even excused himself and left the room for a minute. I don’t know what he did. After perhaps a couple hours of this, he became more insistent that I sell the figurine to him. He even left and returned from his study with a large quantity of bills, offering them to me in exchange for the figurine. It was then that I perceived that the whole situation wasn’t what it seemed to be. I resolved to not part with the figurine for any sum. “Sir,” I said, “I have no intention of selling this.” “Ah, yes,” he said, “just come upstairs with me and I will show you something. That may change your mind.” I carried the Pinocchio figurine with me as I followed him up to his study, which was upstairs and on the other side of the house. It seemed to me that he had taken me up to this room for some purpose, and I was wary. My thoughts were confirmed when, after entering, he calmly went to his desk and withdrew a revolver. “I’m afraid, Mr. McLure, that the time for bargains is past. I mean to have what is in your hand.” This seemed to me to be carrying the thing a bit far, so I handed over the Pinocchio into his hand, it not being of that much worth to me. I asked him if I could leave now. But he said, “No Mr. McLure, you must stay there for a moment.” There was something in the way he said it which told me that he meant to kill me. Whenever I venture anywhere, I keep a revolver inside my waistband,. This I took out, meaning to defend myself. I believe both our shots went off at the same time. I do not know where Lord Laudmoore’s went, but mine when through the Pinocchio figurine and straight into the Lord. So there he lay on the floor, with fragments of the Pinocchio all over him. The first thought I had was to escape the house. I admit my thinking wasn’t clear. I had hoped the police would see the Lord lying there, next to his own gun, and conclude he had used his own gun on himself. The only thing connecting me to the scene was the shattered Pinocchio. I picked up the fragments and put them on the mantelpiece. There was another figurine there, a cheap one, but much like the Pinocchio, and I took that. My hope, at the time, was to remove every trace of the Pinocchio, it being a link to me and the scene. I hoped the maid would conclude that it had been broken before my arrival. Then I went downstairs, and went out the back door, locking it behind me. It was then I noticed that I had not come away unscathed: There was a bullet hole in the side of my jacket. I had escaped being wounded by a fraction of an inch, the bullet going through my jacket but not through me. In a panic, I took the jacket off and put it deep in the bushes behind the house. . .foolish of me. After that I left. I suppose, if I had been thinking more clearly, I would have come straight to the police. CONSTABLE DOBSON: This is a very interesting story. If this is a case of self defense, I do not believe there will be any charges filed. Do you have any idea why Lord Laudmoore wanted the figurine so badly? DAVID McLURE: Perhaps he didn’t want the figurine itself, but what could be found inside it. CONSTABLE DOBSON: I don’t follow you. DAVID McLURE: If you are done questioning me, I think I will go now. The End If you have any comments or questions about "The Mysterious Death of Lord Laudmoore" send me an email. Thinking Tools 2005-01-25T21:57:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/lord-laudmoore-part-2/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/lord-laudmoore-part-2/#When:21:56:00Z Last night, Lord Laudmoore was found lying on his study floor, shot through the heart. Next to him was a revolver with one chamber empty. Constable Dobson, after further investigation discovered: -- All the doors in the house were locked, and there was no sign of a break-in. -- Joe, Lord Laudmoore's chauffeur, claims he heard one shot at 1:30 am--the time which was determined to be the time that Lord Laudmoore was killed. -- There was another bullet (beside the one found in Lord Laudmoore) shot into the wall above the mantelpiece, behind a shattered figurine. This bullet was from the revolver. The bullet in Lord Laudmoore was from an unknown revolver. -- On the evening of the murder, Lord Laudmoore had two guests for dinner: Dr. Radcliff and Mr. McLure. A security camera above the front door shows Dr. Radcliff leaving the residence at 9:24 pm. David McLure was not seen leaving the residence, but claims he left through a back door at 10:00 pm. Q: What should Constable Dobson do next? "Constable Dobson should look more closely at David McLure as he was never seen leaving the residence." --Denise Franklin, Logic Loop reader DAVID McLURE: Me? Wh…why I only came over for dinner. Lord Laudmoore showed me his collection o' figurines, then I left; that was about ten o'clock. I hope ye' aren't suspectin' me o' the crime. I hardly knew the man. I only met him at an auction. He invited me to his house to see some o' his figurines. I came over to see his collection, that's all. Meanwhile, Lord Laudmoore's sister, Lucille, has arrived but she doesn't seem very upset. LUCILLE LAUDMOORE: Oh, so he's dead is he? I can't say I'm surprised somebody killed him. You see, my brother was a very selfish man--nobody really liked him. He was always scheming to get what he wanted--and would stop at nothing to get it. CONSTABLE DOBSON: Did your brother have any occupations or hobbies? LUCILLE LAUDMOORE: I suppose he had one hobby. It seemed like all he ever did was collect these figurines; you can see he has them all over the house. The funny thing was, he would buy them and then break them--or shoot them. Nobody knew why he did it; about half the ones he bought he would just break. I remember him once talking about one he particularly wanted but couldn't find. He said it was a statue of a boy with a long nose, he called it "Pinocchio." I don't know what he would do with it--probably just shoot it once he had it. Q: Do you have any suggestions for Constable Dobson? "Constable Dobson should question Martha about the presence of the two guests. What did they talk about?"--Susan F., Logic Loop reader MARTHA THE HOUSEKEEPER: Goodness! I never listen in on conversations of others. That would be most improper. And besides, they didn't talk about anything interesting at all. Stuff about the weather, figurines, and such. Mr. McLure had brought a figurine over and the Lord offered to buy it. Most boring. I would never care to listen to such boring conversations. CONSTABLE DOBSON: Lord Laudmoore bought a figurine from David McLure? MARTHA THE HOUSEKEEPER: Oh, I didn't say he sold it to him, Mr. McLure refused to sell. Then Lord Laudmoore came into the kitchen where I was list…I mean, where I was washing the dishes, and told me to take the rest of the night off and go home. So I went. I don't know why he was so excited. It was all probably very boring anyway. "Constable Dobson should question Dr. Radcliff on what he saw that night."--John P., Logic Loop reader DR. RADCLIFF: Yes, Lord Laudmoore offered to buy a figurine from Mr. McLure last night. But I don't know if he actually got it because the Lord told me to leave after that. A most rude fellow he is--telling his guests to leave before they've had dessert. I refuse to be considered a suspect in this suicide investigation. It's obvious that this was a suicide. The man should have killed himself. JOE THE CHAUFFEUR: I tell you, the old man was always quite the conniving one. Always scheming to get what he wanted. He was always sneaking around, and was generally up to no good, too. Why, last evening, about half past ten, before I went to bed, I was just looking out the window when I sees him, the Lord I mean, come out of the back door and unplug the security camera, the one on the back door you know, and then go inside. I don't know why he did it, but he was up to no good if you ask me--unplugging his own security device. "Constable Dobson should dust the gun for prints and compare to those of McLure and test him for gunshot residue."--Denise Franklin, Logic Loop reader The Gunshot Residue test is where you test the hands of people for little particles of gunpowder. If someone has gunshot residue on their hand, we know they have fired a gun recently. However, if they don't have gunshot residue on their hand, we can't say they DIDN'T fire a gun--they might have worn gloves or washed their hands afterward. --A gun-powder residue test revealed that Lord Laudmoore had fired a gun before he died. No one else had any gun- powder residue on them. Then Constable Dobson went up to the Study with his fingerprint kit. --The fingerprints of Lord Laudmoore were found on the revolver. Puzzling developments. But not as puzzling as… CONSTABLE BLAKELY: Sir, I think you might be interested in seeing this. I just found it out back in the bushes. As you can see, it's a dinner jacket, with an obvious bullet hole--here are the powder burns. I took the liberty of looking at it closely and as you can see the laundry label says . . . LUCILLE LAUDMOORE: There it is! The Pinocchio! The one I was telling you about, there on the mantle piece! CONSTABLE DOBSON: What! You mean the broken one? LUCILLE LAUDMOORE: Yes, but don't you see the long nose, that's just how my brother described it; that has got to be Pinocchio! See, I told you he would break it! YOUR TURN Now it's your turn to solve "The Mysterious Death of Lord Laudmoore." 1. Tell me your theory for what happened last night in Lord Laudmoore's house. 2. Tell me some reasons for AND AGAINST your theory: What pieces of evidence makes your theory possible; what makes it improbable? 3. Tell me what Constable Dobson can do that will help prove or disprove your theory. Hint: The guilty one is the person who has a motive. Next time: Part 3 The Solution Thinking Tools 2005-01-03T21:56:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/answers-to-circumstantial-evidence/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/answers-to-circumstantial-evidence/#When:21:55:00Z Many people have responded with bits of advice for Constable Dobson – telling him what he should do next to solve the mysterious murder of Lord Laudmoore. The constable is a busy man, but he is reading your suggestions and will take action soon. Here are the answers to last Logic Loop’s quiz: “Circumstantial Evidence.” I have written the answers below each quote. The winners of the quiz were: Julie Sanford and John Stewart. *  SEEDY SAM: “No, I didn’t shoot Lord Laudmoore through the window.” [Probably true. Evidence #3, #4, and #8 support this. ] *  JOE THE CHAUFFEUR: “I was supposed to drive Lord Laudmoore somewhere at 8:00 this morning. I was waiting for him, but he never came. At 9:00 I unlocked the house and went in looking for him. I found him in his study just like you see him now. Then I called the police.” [Possibly true. We have no evidence indicating this is what he did, it is only possible.] *  DAVID McLURE: “Murdered, you say? That’s bad! I was invited to his house last evening to have dinner. I remember there was a man named Doctor Radcliff there as well. I don’t remember noticin’ anythin’ out of the ordinary. The doctor left around 9:30 and I left around 10:00. Lord Laudmoore let me out.” [Improbable. Due to evidence #9, we know David did not leave through the front door, so he must have left through some other door. It seems improbable that Lord Laudmoore would have let him out a back door or window.] *  JOE THE CHAUFFEUR: “Maybe a shot from the Lord’s gun ricocheted off the wall, bounced off the coal scooper, then came around and killed him? I’ve seen it happen in movies.” [Improbable or impossible. The physics seem a bit stretched here.] *  DR RADCLIFF: “Yes, I had dinner there last night. It was t-bone steak, that was the main course I believe – prepared by Lord Laudmoore’s housekeeper, Martha. After dinner we talked for a while. A young man named David McLure was there as well. I guess Laudmoore had invited him. He seemed like a nice chap.” [Possibly true, if we only consider the circumstantial evidence collected. But, if we consider the testimony of David McLure, who says Radcliff had dinner with him that night, we can say this is probably true.] *  JOE THE CHAUFFEUR (indicating the revolver found on the floor): “Yes, that is Lord Laudmoore’s revolver. He normally kept it in his desk drawer.” [Possibly true. We have no evidence either way on this.] *  MARTHA THE HOUSEKEEPER: “That figurine must have been broken last night. I remember I dusted them yesterday afternoon and none were broken then.” [Probably true. Evidence #7 says that there was dust from the figurine on Lord Laudmoore's coat, meaning that the figurine was probably broken at the time of his death – this supports Martha.] Questions & Answers 2004-10-28T21:55:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/circumstantial-evidence/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/circumstantial-evidence/#When:21:54:00Z If Constable Dobson arrives at a scene and sees an open safe, an upset chair, and a bloodstain on a villain’s shirt, he is looking at “circumstantial evidence.” Circumstantial evidence refers to the circumstances surrounding a particular “mysterious” event. Circumstantial evidence isn’t direct evidence of what happened – like an eyewitness of a murder would be – but is indirect, we have to interpret it to make it useful. In today’s story, Lord Laudmoore, is found dead in his study one morning. Lying next to him is a revolver with one chamber empty. Constable Dobson considers the gun to be circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence always requires us to use our thinking skills to figure out what it means. The revolver on the floor could mean some intruder shot Lord Laudmoore while he was sitting at his desk playing solitaire. Or, it could mean Lord Laudmoore was enjoying target practice with the figurines on the mantelpiece when he had a heart attack and fell over dead. However, if a bullet wound was found on Lord Laudmoore, corresponding to the caliber of the weapon, there would be further circumstantial evidence pointing to a murder. Eyewitness reports are also circumstantial evidence if they are used to determine a circumstantial fact. If the study safe was broken into and a lot of money appeared to be missing, and if Seedy Sam, a local character with no money, was seen by witnesses the next day buying expensive items at a shopping mall, there would be circumstantial evidence, coming from witnesses, putting suspicion on Seedy Sam. Maybe he murdered Lord Laudmoore and took the money? But since nobody SAW Seedy Sam murder Lord Laudmoore, the only evidence against him is circumstantial. Possible or Impossible *  Circumstantial evidence can show us whether an eyewitness’s story is possible or impossible: PINKIE THE VAGRANT: “Yes, I know it was Seedy Sam because I saw ‘im. I was sleepin’ in the bushes, like I always do, I was, when I see this Seedy Sam come up with this long rifle in ’is ‘and. Well I sees ‘im come up to the window and then ‘e opens up and shoots see, then ‘e throws the gun in the bushes and runs ‘way.” Circumstantial evidence gathered from the scene shows us that parts of Pinkie the Vagrant’s story are improbable, and other parts are impossible. Pinkie says that the gun used was a rifle, but Constable Dobson knows this is impossible. He knows the bullet was from a handgun. Also, Dobson knows that the murder weapon was probably not thrown in the bushes because, after searching, he found nothing. *  Circumstantial evidence can verify a witness’s story. MARTHA THE HOUSEKEEPER: “I locked up the house at 9:30, last night. I am sure all the doors and windows were locked. After that, I went home.” If after an examination, it was found that all the doors and windows WERE locked, and nothing had been broken into, we would have circumstantial evidence verifying what Martha the Housekeeper says. What she said is probably true. As with any source of information, circumstantial evidence has its strengths and its weaknesses. For example, circumstantial evidence cannot lie to us, however, as with the revolver on the floor, we can interpret the evidence incorrectly. Discovering that all the doors of the house were locked probably means the housekeeper locked them, but it’s possible somebody else did. YOUR TURN Now it’s your turn to analyze some evidence. Constable Dobson has collected some circumstantial evidence. Read it and answer the questions below it. Type your answers below each question and send them back to me. THE FIRST THREE PEOPLE WHO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS CORRECTLY WILL RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF “THE FALLACY DETECTIVE” (OR A LOGIC LOOP COFFE MUG IF THEY ALREADY HAVE THE BOOK.) 1. Lord Laudmoore was found dead early one morning lying on his study floor, shot through the heart. Next to him was found a .38 caliber revolver with one chamber empty. 2. Joe, Lord Laudmoore’s chauffeur, who lives over the garage, reported the murder to the police. 3. After a corner’s examination it was determined that Lord Laudmoore was shot with a .38 caliber pistol or revolver bullet at close range. The shot resulted in instantaneous death around 1:30 in the morning. 4. The window of the study (which was on the second floor) was locked. The rest of the outside doors and windows were locked, and nothing had been broken into. 5. However, the study safe was broken into and was a mess. 6. One of the figurines on the fireplace mantelpiece was shattered and a .38 caliber bullet was found lodged in the wall behind. The fireplace is next to the door. 7. Some dust from the broken figurine was on Lord Laudmoore’s coat. 8. A private security camera, perched on the side of the house near the study window, recorded everything that happened outside the window. The footage showed nothing suspicious. 9. Footage from another camera near the front door shows a man identified as Dr. Radcliff leaving at 9:24pm and Martha the Housekeeper leaving at 9:31pm. The camera recorded no other events that night. QUESTION 1: Below are some eyewitness accounts. Based only on the circumstantial evidence given, chose between these options: 1) Probably true, (evidence supports the statement.) 2) Possibly true, (evidence doesn’t support or deny the statement.) 3) Improbable, (evidence or common sense makes the statement unlikely.) 4) Impossible (evidence makes the statement extremely improbable.) Write your answer below each account. You MUST cite evidence supporting your answer. *  JOE THE CHAUFFEUR: “It was about 1:30 in the morning when I heard this very loud bang like a gun going off – very loud. I thought it was Sir Laudmoore shooting the figurines on his mantelpiece – as he sometimes does when he’s in an ill mood – so I didn’t think anymore of it until this morning.” EXAMPLE ANSWER: Probably true. According to evidence #3, Lord Laudmoore was murdered at that time, this supports Joe’s statement that a shot was fired then. *  SEEDY SAM: “No, I didn’t shoot Lord Laudmoore through the window.” *  JOE THE CHAUFFEUR: “I was supposed to drive Lord Laudmoore somewhere at 8:00 this morning. I was waiting for him, but he never came. At 9:00 I unlocked the house and went in looking for him. I found him in his study just like you see him now. Then I called the police.” *  DAVID McLURE: “Murdered, you say? That’s bad! I was invited to his house last evening to have dinner. I remember there was a man named Doctor Radcliff there as well. I don’t remember noticin’ anythin’ out of the ordinary. The doctor left around 9:30 and I left around 10:00. Lord Laudmoore let me out.” *  JOE THE CHAUFFEUR: “Maybe a shot from the Lord’s gun ricocheted off the wall, bounced off the coal scooper, then came around and killed him? I’ve seen it happen in movies.” *  DR RADCLIFF: “Yes, I had dinner there last night. It was t-bone steak, that was the main course I believe – prepared by Lord Laudmoore’s housekeeper, Martha. After dinner we talked for a while. A young man named David McLure was there as well. I guess Laudmoore had invited him. He seemed like a nice chap.” *  JOE THE CHAUFFEUR (indicating the revolver found on the floor): “Yes, that is Lord Laudmoore’s revolver. He normally kept it in his desk drawer.” *  MARTHA THE HOUSEKEEPER: “That figurine must have been broken last night. I remember I dusted them yesterday afternoon and none were broken then.” QUESTION 2: What you think Constable Dobson should do next? Send your answers back to me. Thinking Tools 2004-10-22T21:54:00-06:00 http://www.christianlogic.com/site/mystery-of-the-stolen-manoot-part-iii/ http://www.christianlogic.com/site/mystery-of-the-stolen-manoot-part-iii/#When:21:52:00Z You may remember that the burnt remains of "The Picnic," by Manoot, were found in Mrs. McLeary's library fireplace. . . CONSTABLE DOBSON: What? MAID: Yes sir. Here is the corner sir. I don't think it can be fixed, sir. Constable Dobson went to tell Mrs. McLeary. CONSTABLE DOBSON: Mrs. McLeary, I'm afraid I have some bad news. MRS. McLEARY: If it's about that dratted painting, don't bother. CONSTABLE DOBSON: Uh, yes, as a matter of fact, it seems the thief has burnt it. MRS. McLEARY: Then he beat me to it. I was about to do it myself, if I ever found it. I can't believe that swindler of an art dealer ever sold it to me. I have just heard the most shameful things about Manoot. I can't believe I ever liked the painting. Puzzling developments. Do you know who stole the painting, now? "I think Brinkley the Butler did it. He has the best access to the fireplace/fires, aside from Mrs. McLeary, and his fingerprints were found on the frame and the window sill." – Kimberly, Logic Loop reader. That could be true. So Constable Dobson went to talk to Brinkley the Butler again. CONSTABLE DOBSON: Brinkley, it was you who stole Mrs. McLeary's painting and burnt it, wasn't it? BRINKLEY: Yes sir. I must confess I am culpable in the matter. It seemed to me to be the best course in order to keep in tact the prestige of Mrs. McLeary's collection. I also could not endure the daily task of viewing the painting for the purpose of dusting it. I took the steps you mentioned, planning to assuage Mrs. Mcleary's grief by informing her later of the sordid details surrounding the origin of the painting. CONSTABLE DOBSON: Brinkley, who was Manoot? BRINKLEY: I am told Manoot was of the genus simian. CONSTABLE DOBSON: He was of the what? BRINKLEY: More specifically he was an orangutan, captured in the country of Borneo . I believe his owner had trained him to paint, and consequently made money off the animal by showing his talents in small villages on several continents. I have heard that this particular painting, "The Picnic," was completed while on a trans-Saharan trek. CONSTABLE DOBSON: Don't tell me he painted it while riding a camel. BRINKLEY: I believe that was the mode described to me. I also believe there were alcoholic stimulants involved as well, sir. CONSTABLE DOBSON: Who would have guessed it? But Brinkley, what about Pinkie? Had he nothing to do with it? BRINKLEY: No sir. I endeavored to cast suspicion on Pinkie in order to give Mrs. McLeary someone to blame, knowing she would never press charges. Also, the nights have been frigid lately, and I believe Pinkie finds it more comfortable in the jail. Will that be all sir? CONSTABLE DOBSON: Quite. You may go. BRINKLEY: If I may ask, sir, will there be any charges filed in connection with the painting? CONSTABLE DOBSON: I don't think so; I think the world has seen enough of "The Picnic," by Manoot. The End If you have any comments or questions about the "Mystery of the Stolen Manoot" send me an email. Thinking Tools 2004-05-16T21:52:00-06:00