# Why can't I solve logic questions but I realize how easy they are after seeing the answer?

These seem like they’re linked, but they’re not.

Logic puzzles seem easy after you see the answer because that’s part of the definition of “logic puzzles.” If a question still seems hard after you see the answer, people give it a different name, like “engineering problem” or “statistics problem.”

All logic problems seem easy to most people. Once you know how they’re done.

The reason you can’t solve logic problems is because you haven’t developed the specialized skills required to solve them. Logic problems are a skill like basketball, woodworking, or tax accounting. The more you practice and cons

These seem like they’re linked, but they’re not.

Logic puzzles seem easy after you see the answer because that’s part of the definition of “logic puzzles.” If a question still seems hard after you see the answer, people give it a different name, like “engineering problem” or “statistics problem.”

All logic problems seem easy to most people. Once you know how they’re done.

The reason you can’t solve logic problems is because you haven’t developed the specialized skills required to solve them. Logic problems are a skill like basketball, woodworking, or tax accounting. The more you practice and conscientiously develop strategy, the more you speak with mentors and work on the skill over time, the better you get.

This is a common problem often found in subjects such as maths.. Practice is all it takes and eventually the logic will click in and you will see the answers..

A little girl kicks a soccer ball. It goes 10 feet and comes back to her. How is this possible?

.

.

Ever heard of gravity? She kicked it up.

A 10 foot rope ladder hangs over the side of a boat with the bottom rung on the surface of the water. The rungs are one foot apart, and the tide goes up at the rate of 6 inches per hour. How long will it be until three rungs are covered?

Never. The boat rises as the tide goes up.

A is the father of B. But B is not the son of A. How’s that possible?

B is the daughter you MCP’s!

A man dressed in all black is walking down a country lane. Suddenly, a large black car

A little girl kicks a soccer ball. It goes 10 feet and comes back to her. How is this possible?

.

.

Ever heard of gravity? She kicked it up.

A 10 foot rope ladder hangs over the side of a boat with the bottom rung on the surface of the water. The rungs are one foot apart, and the tide goes up at the rate of 6 inches per hour. How long will it be until three rungs are covered?

Never. The boat rises as the tide goes up.

A is the father of B. But B is not the son of A. How’s that possible?

B is the daughter you MCP’s!

A man dressed in all black is walking down a country lane. Suddenly, a large black car without any lights on comes round the corner and screeches to a halt. How did the car know he was there?

It was day time.

A rooster laid an egg on top of the barn roof. Which way did it roll?

It didn’t roll – since when did roosters start laying eggs?

A truck driver is going down a one way street the wrong way, and passes at least ten cops. Why is he not caught?

Because he was not driving! He’s walking on the sidewalk.

An electric train is moving north at 100mph and a wind is blowing to the west at 10mph. Which way does the smoke blow?

There is no smoke with an electric train.

How can a man go eight days without sleep?

By sleeping during the night time

How can you drop a raw egg onto a concrete floor without cracking it?

The Egg won’t crack the concrete floor!

How can you lift an elephant with one hand?

It is not a problem, since you will never find an elephant with one hand.

How much dirt is there in a hole 3 feet deep, 6 ft long and 4 ft wide?

None, or else it wouldn’t be a hole.

If a doctor gives you 3 pills and tells you to take one pill every half hour, how long would it take before all the pills had been taken?

1 hour! Take the 1st pill right away, half an hour later take the 2nd and half an hour after that the 3rd. Total time spent: 1 hour!

If it took eight men ten hours to build a wall,how long would it take four men to build it?

No time at all it is already built.

If Mr Smith’s peacock lays an egg in Mr Jones’ yard, who owns the egg?

Peacocks don’t lay eggs, just peahens.

If there are 6 apples and you take away 4, how many do you have?

The 4 you took.

If you had only one match, and entered a dark room containing an oil lamp, some newspaper, and some kindling wood, which would you light first?

The match.

Is it legal for a man to marry his widow’s sister?

No, but since he’s dead it would be kind of difficult.

Some months have 31 days, others have 30 days. How many have 28 days?

All months have 28 days.

Larry’s father has five sons named Ten, Twenty, Thirty, Forty…Guess what would be the name of the fifth?

Larry! He would be the fifth son

There was an airplane crash, every single person on board died, but yet two people survived. How is this possible?

The two were married.

What goes up and down, but still remains in the same place?

Stairs!

How far can you walk into the woods?

Half way. After that you are walking out of the woods.

If you throw a red stone into the blue sea what it will become?

(It will become Wet. Duhh :P)

What can you never eat for breakfast?

(Dinner)

What gets wetter & wetter the more it dries?

(A towel)

Name the most recent year in which New Year’s came before Christmas.

(This year. New Year’s always comes before Christmas of the same year.)

What goes up and never comes down? (Age!)

Which is heavier, 100 pounds of rocks or 100 pounds of feathers?

(They both weigh the same – 100 pounds)

What has a head and a tail but no body? (A coin)

If there are 12 fish and half of them drown, how many are there?

(12, fish don’t drown!)

Imagine you are in a sinking row boat surrounded by sharks. How would you survive?

(Stop imagining!)

How many times can you subtract 10 from 100?

(Once. Next time you would be subtracting 10 from 90.)

How many times does the alphabet ‘a’ appear from 0-100.

None

It sounds like you have not found the motivation yet to study what you like. In high school, I had a similar dilemma, with teachers constantly diluting the complexity of problems and dismissing many of my thoughts as bothering to the class (in hindsight, many of them were simply bad teachers- 'curiosity' queries can be simply handled by 'we'll get to that later').

here is what drew me in:
music. more specifically, music visualisation. These are simply Fast-Fourier transforms of music, where the horizontal is time (~20seconds of music per screen), vertical is frequency and the white level is the

It sounds like you have not found the motivation yet to study what you like. In high school, I had a similar dilemma, with teachers constantly diluting the complexity of problems and dismissing many of my thoughts as bothering to the class (in hindsight, many of them were simply bad teachers- 'curiosity' queries can be simply handled by 'we'll get to that later').

here is what drew me in:
music. more specifically, music visualisation. These are simply Fast-Fourier transforms of music, where the horizontal is time (~20seconds of music per screen), vertical is frequency and the white level is the amplitude (loudness). before a hdd failure, I had a fairly nice collection of rare music, from relatives and friends of friends. But i digress:

What could be causing the harmonics of those waves to generate beautiful visual patterns?
I found out a lot of info on a lot of topics simply by digging the answer to this question: music production values, a-curves, harmonics of music instruments, transducer sensitivities, signal convolution theory, pulse coded modulation, encryption, noise floors, arbitrary signal generators... and all of that before I even got into the first year of engineering.

So, why not carry on? It looks like you would be a great mathematician, computer scientist, or astrophysicist. It is just a matter of finding the right environment for you.

Unlike engineers, some biologists, medical scientists, the above professions tends to favour elegant solutions just for the sake of it.
Unfortunately however, in the training for such careers you need to solve boring problems related to simple applications; they do have their purpose however. Sometimes solving a simple problem on the back of the envelope gives you a sense of scale as to the starting point of a much bigger mystery.

Do you like thinking about optimising a routine? There's not enough algorithm gurus in the world, as it seems that contemporary programming is a fest of copy-paste, cobbling together with sticky tape and little thinking about optimum solutions.

To be a physicist means to have the arrogance to wake up every day and say to yourself: "today, i'm going to try to learn more about this world!".
A mathematician might kick it up a notch, being by far the most philosophical of all "hard" disciplines: "Today I'm going to attempt to prove the existence of this particular group isomorphism."

There is some room for philosophy in higher levels of natural sciences and engineering: "is my instrument reading correct, or do I need to devise a new method? What if i am the first one doing this? Can I sell it?

I'll have to say: science and scientists are tough. We often have no time for chit-chat, to the detriment of social relationships. We are more interested in that odd 1 decibel peak we measured in the dim basement at 3am than we are in the latest news story. We skip pleasantries to tell you how shit your data is and how badly wrong you are. But in the same time we do things very few people have the privilege, time or interest to do, and it's wonderful.

You are a quarter of the way there already, simply by asking this question. Keep pushing.

Most of the answers I read here seem to state that logic cannot explain everything.

Now, you will not hear me say here that logic can explain everything, but I truly feel that concluding the opposite is a bit premature. In its broadest sense logic is all about valid reasoning. In a more precise sense it's a language to describe some structure, and some axioms written in that language which describe basic properties of that structure and some set of inference rules which allow one to deduce new sentences in the language, which we call the consequences of conclusions of our inference.

I personall

Most of the answers I read here seem to state that logic cannot explain everything.

Now, you will not hear me say here that logic can explain everything, but I truly feel that concluding the opposite is a bit premature. In its broadest sense logic is all about valid reasoning. In a more precise sense it's a language to describe some structure, and some axioms written in that language which describe basic properties of that structure and some set of inference rules which allow one to deduce new sentences in the language, which we call the consequences of conclusions of our inference.

I personally don't see why it would be impossible to have some model of our universe as the structure in question, some set of axioms, which describe the basic properties of our universe, such as energy and matter and some set of inference rules allowing us to deduce possible consequences in that model. In fact that is precisely what science does. It builds models describing our physical universe. To say that science, as of today cannot explain things like consciousness, self awareness, emotions such as love and hate, the origins of life, etc. would, of course, be perfectly true. But to claim that it is in principle impossible, I feel, is somewhat premature. History shows that, many times in the past, that which was unexplainable, was explained by science. There is good hope that science, and a fortiori logic, will also make its influence felt in addressing these issues.

Robert J. Kolker makes a very good point when he writes "Logic does NOT answer the question: are the premises of the argument true? All logic can say is that the inference of the conclusion from the premise is valid. Logic can never tell us if our arguments are sound.

To find that out we must stop, look and listen to what is going on in the world. There determination of truth is empirical, not logical."

This is precisely why I speak of a model of reality instead of reality itself. Science can do no more than build better and better models. It should be noted however, that when he claims that determination of truth is empirical, even that is not accurate. There is a fundamental disconnect between reality and our perception of reality, which is by finite and limited senses. This remains true even when we extend our senses with all of the beautiful toys of science. We never can do anything more than sample the reality that's out there, potentially missing information.

What this means is that even empirical measurements can at the very best, only give us partial truth. In the end all that each and every one of us has, somewhere in that grey mass we call a brain, is a model of reality we assume to be true. This also holds true of scientists. And since we're talking about models, logic again takes centre stage as the main tool to examine the properties of these models. Since things like consciousness, love and hate, are very present in my perception of reality and thus must be accounted for in any model of reality, I'd say, we've got our work cut out for us. I wouldn't rule out the role logic has to play in building that model.

Logical thinking and problem solving skills, contrary to much public opinion and even college classes, etc. has nothing to do with how much knowledge or information is in your head it also isn’t just a trick in the way you think… it takes serious wisdom and understanding the big-picture about how things work, in reality, generally and specifically. You can’t ever get that from anyone else. The best teachers are people who guide you to discover truth. Actual teaching is becoming extinct in our society. Our schools, k-12 and even colleges are filled with “tellers” and very few actual “teachers”

Logical thinking and problem solving skills, contrary to much public opinion and even college classes, etc. has nothing to do with how much knowledge or information is in your head it also isn’t just a trick in the way you think… it takes serious wisdom and understanding the big-picture about how things work, in reality, generally and specifically. You can’t ever get that from anyone else. The best teachers are people who guide you to discover truth. Actual teaching is becoming extinct in our society. Our schools, k-12 and even colleges are filled with “tellers” and very few actual “teachers” any more.

For that reason, serious problem solving and logical thinking skills, are some of the most rare virtues around. Working in nature, where you begin to reap the cause and effects of your own labor, is one of the best habits you will ever develop. Plant a garden, learn how to build things, work with animals, work with your hands and discover for yourself how nature works and the universe operates… but then relate everything to your own life in practical application. It is a good thing to learn from others but learning is not about memorizing, it’s about discovering.

What you want to focus on is discovering principles. Principles are the most precious treasure on earth. they are always hidden beneath and in between what you think you already know. That doesn’t mean that simply working with your hands is the magic. Most people who work with their hands, still haven’t discovered principles.

Only wise and worthy mentors can help to uncover principles for you and then guide you how to discover them through your own practical experience with life. But you must be willing to do the work and discover them for yourself.

Unfortunately, even the vast majority of people who make a living helping to solve problems actually end up creating more problems than they solve because they lack the big-picture of life and reality. That only comes to a small few who have discovered that wisdom is a totally different thing than knowledge. The two are acquired in very different ways. Knowledge is based on information that can be memorized and passed from one person to another. You can stumble upon knowledge through experience but knowledge is all about “answers,” it breeds arrogance and inflated, false pride (most assumed knowledge today is not really knowledge at all but only naïve assumptions, which is really foolishness).

Wisdom on the other hand, is founded on principles. Wisdom is never contented with “answers,” because it knows there is always more…. Wisdom is entirely based on discovering better questions. Answers stop growth, questions demand and perpetuate growth… Since every piece of real truth is totally interdependent on every other truth, there is always more, better, greater improvements to make, regardless of whether you are at the bottom, top or anywhere between-of what you are trying to understand.

The great masters through time, became great masters because they never stopped learning, discovering and evolving. The only way they remain great masters is by never losing track of their leaders, mentors, masters….

Beware, however many, many today believe (and/or try to convince you) that they are wise and flaunt their money, positions, knowledge, influence, etc. Many even believe they have risen above ordinary mortals (talk about ego). But the truly wise and their followers are the ones willing to do what the masses are not willing to do… the hardest work they will ever undertake—their own self evolution. Even though difficult at first, it is only way to live with real fulfillment and genuine happiness that doesn’t fade with the lights and the music….

I have come to call, what everyone wants, but only a few have been willing to discover, the most valuable and precious treasure on earth… “The principles that birth intelligence, lead to wisdom and harness the laws of creation.”

Since you are a creator—that’s what you do, every moment of your life—create your own future reality, You can learn to create something much greater than you have done so far, regardless of how little or far you have come.

Once on that path, you will naturally see what is, over ride your ego that desperately tries to get you to find what will pacify you for the moment, so you don’t have to risk failure, and claim whatever rewards you want most. Intelligently taking those risks is the only path to wisdom and wisdom is the only environment that enables one to solve problems and see the perfect logic in the universe—and align your thoughts and behaviors with it…

There is no way to cut corners to gain wisdom—but it is the great shortcut to super success. Everything else is settle-for. You just must make the decision.

The efforts will pale by comparison to the rewards—IF you recognize and accept that it is all up to you, no one can ever come to your rescue, and then make it a life-style. There is no gimmick or tactic or trick, but once you make those commitments, the right mentors will show up and make all the difference.

Learn to love being uncomfortable, pushing yourself out of your comfort zones IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION and the world will be yours.

Let’s go catch your dreams .

Eldon Grant

“Logical thinking” is ambiguous: it can refer to (what I’d call) common sense abilities to solve practical problems in daily life, or it can refer to rigorous analytic abilities to distinguish valid, sound, and complete systems of inference and argumentation from those that lack those properties.

Perhaps surprisingly, being “excellent” or exceptional in either one does not always entail being equally “excellent” or exceptional in the other. Very gifted logicians and mathematicians are often notoriously inept at many of the mundane tasks of daily living, from poor hygiene and money management to

“Logical thinking” is ambiguous: it can refer to (what I’d call) common sense abilities to solve practical problems in daily life, or it can refer to rigorous analytic abilities to distinguish valid, sound, and complete systems of inference and argumentation from those that lack those properties.

Perhaps surprisingly, being “excellent” or exceptional in either one does not always entail being equally “excellent” or exceptional in the other. Very gifted logicians and mathematicians are often notoriously inept at many of the mundane tasks of daily living, from poor hygiene and money management to casual conversation and personal relationships, and much more that many of us easily navigate by common sense abilities.

At the same time, many who rise to various pinnacles of material success in daily life, guided by common sense and little or not formal logic or mathematical training or study (such as physicians, attorneys, financiers and bankers, politicians, and others) are often at a loss to explain just how their success can be “logically” explained or how they can discern between “logical” or “reasonable” decisions and actions in general.

So the bottom line is that neither common sense reason nor rigorous analytic logic is is necessary or sufficient for success or excellence in the other. As a formal analytic discipline, however, I think it’s safe to assume that advanced mathematics requires at least an exceptional intuitive capacity for rational, logical thought that is significantly above average.

Improvement in common sense abilities is perhaps best achieved through puzzle and problem solving, whether or not they involve math. Playing complex games like chess and go, for instance, and reading detective mysteries with challenging plots to solve may also hone those skills. Improvement in rigorous (formal) analytic abilities, by contrast, is best pursued through academic studies, either self-directed or in college or university courses, online or on campus.

Thanks for the A2A.

They did a study of people once comparing people who studied logic with people who studied chess and found that teaching people chess helped them think logically even more so than teaching them logic.

The reason for that is that our brains are visual, and most of the tenets of logic don't map cleanly into that visual thinking. But chess is both logical and visual.

Ideas such as transposition, overloading of pieces, pawn chain weaknesses and the like play into logic well in ways that mesh with the brains visual processing nature.

So I'd recommend, assuming you want deep skills a

Thanks for the A2A.

They did a study of people once comparing people who studied logic with people who studied chess and found that teaching people chess helped them think logically even more so than teaching them logic.

The reason for that is that our brains are visual, and most of the tenets of logic don't map cleanly into that visual thinking. But chess is both logical and visual.

Ideas such as transposition, overloading of pieces, pawn chain weaknesses and the like play into logic well in ways that mesh with the brains visual processing nature.

So I'd recommend, assuming you want deep skills and are not in a hurry, taking up chess and reading some books on it, then looking at some classic games and playing against people online and against computer opponents and analyzing the games.

You'll find that this increases your ability to start combining logical thoughts.

Then learn things like common fallacies of thinking and other philosophical thoughts.

If you want to go the computer programming route, a good book is this one, Structure and interpretation of computer programs at which takes things from a logician's perspective.

The most important single questions to start asking yourself are

1. If this is true what else must also be true?

2. If this is true what else must also be false?

3. If this is false what else must also be true?

4. If this is false what else must also be false?

Or, put more succinctly:

"If I know this one (or set of) thing(s), what else can I conclude and also know?"

One other thing I did for a while is played sudoko for fun, and after a couple of weeks started playing without using a pencil (doing the whole thing in my head). That will build up your ability to not only see relationships, but to pile one relationship on top of another.

But it has it's limits (not always easy to transfer the skill to other logic domains) and does get boring after a while, so mix it up.

Logic is the most basic part of problem-solving. It is so integral that it almost seems a better question to ask “How could you not apply logic in problem solving?” It is used in almost every type of problem-solving, from math problems to real-world problems.

In math, logic is highly applicable. Let’s say you’re given a simple math problem: “Bob has 1800 cookies and he eats 900 of them. What does Bob have now?” It is perfectly accurate to say “diabetes” is the answer, but it absolutely illogical to think that that is what the question is asking. Furthermore, looking at the numbers 1800 and 900

Logic is the most basic part of problem-solving. It is so integral that it almost seems a better question to ask “How could you not apply logic in problem solving?” It is used in almost every type of problem-solving, from math problems to real-world problems.

In math, logic is highly applicable. Let’s say you’re given a simple math problem: “Bob has 1800 cookies and he eats 900 of them. What does Bob have now?” It is perfectly accurate to say “diabetes” is the answer, but it absolutely illogical to think that that is what the question is asking. Furthermore, looking at the numbers 1800 and 900 and deciding to add them to make 2700 would also be illogical.

In the real world, logic is also a fundamental necessity (this, however, does not seem to apply to POTUS candidates). For example, if you see smoke coming out of the stove, and you realize you didn’t turn the stove off, you can conclude that you effectively started a fire (and given Ockham’s razor, it is not a transdimensional midget dwarf who entered the gas pipes and began smoking). You realize that fires are hot and burn things so you don’t go over and attempt to pet the fire. You also realize that the firemen are probably better than you at putting fires out, and are probably more well-equipped so you call the fire station. You realize that oil won’t help put out the fire so you use water instead. See? Logic. How can you survive without it?

It honestly depends on the type of puzzle. If it's a puzzle that requires information not provided by the actual puzzle, than yes. It's entirely possible for someone with a high IQ to be bad at that variation of puzzles, for example, puzzles that ask what is similar between some words, they may be bad at, because they haven't been exposed to such words (fitting into the this category). Or it maybe a mathematical based puzzle that requires prior mathematical knowledge (again fitting into the suggested category).

However if it's a culturally neutral puzzle, if this is the case it's most likely a

It honestly depends on the type of puzzle. If it's a puzzle that requires information not provided by the actual puzzle, than yes. It's entirely possible for someone with a high IQ to be bad at that variation of puzzles, for example, puzzles that ask what is similar between some words, they may be bad at, because they haven't been exposed to such words (fitting into the this category). Or it maybe a mathematical based puzzle that requires prior mathematical knowledge (again fitting into the suggested category).

However if it's a culturally neutral puzzle, if this is the case it's most likely a puzzle requiring spatial reasoning, presumably a person with a high IQ should be able to able to do it. Since an aspect of intelligence measured in IQ tests is spatial reasoning abilities.

To put it simply it depends.

What a beautiful language. A pack of contradictions...

You haven't specified "assessments of logic". No wonder you "still have issues with logic". Looks like some kind of joke. "I'm very clever but I suck at XYZ".

Have you asked yourself who are those people who describe you as "a very intelligent individual"? Relatives? Girlfriends? Employees? Do they need anything from you?

If it helps you: many logic puzzles are plain nonsenses. Your task is to understand that they are nonsenses [understand that there are things which you cannot understand] and pass them to people who think they're good at lo

What a beautiful language. A pack of contradictions...

You haven't specified "assessments of logic". No wonder you "still have issues with logic". Looks like some kind of joke. "I'm very clever but I suck at XYZ".

Have you asked yourself who are those people who describe you as "a very intelligent individual"? Relatives? Girlfriends? Employees? Do they need anything from you?

If it helps you: many logic puzzles are plain nonsenses. Your task is to understand that they are nonsenses [understand that there are things which you cannot understand] and pass them to people who think they're good at logic. Enjoy the show.

P.S. Maybe you're good at public speaking which isn't the same as logical reasoning?

P.P.S. Isn't it because logical reasoning is a part of what is called "intelligence" and when people describe you as an intelligent person they skip this logic part and describe your cerebral abilities as a whole? Maybe they don't wanna hurt your feelings? Just for the sake of argument.

/Kiril

"Brainteasers" usually pertain to only a specific range of cognitive functions. You would not be dumb to struggle with them, nor smart to readily solve them, except to be judged on the basis of those limited rubrics alone.

They are neither a holistic measure of anything nor a particularly inclusive approach to measuring even specific forms of cognitive excellence. Since the purpose is generally more geared towards fun and self-challenge (or psychoanalysis and social lubrication) than succeeding at relationships, educational systems, or occupations, you can do just fine without answering them

"Brainteasers" usually pertain to only a specific range of cognitive functions. You would not be dumb to struggle with them, nor smart to readily solve them, except to be judged on the basis of those limited rubrics alone.

They are neither a holistic measure of anything nor a particularly inclusive approach to measuring even specific forms of cognitive excellence. Since the purpose is generally more geared towards fun and self-challenge (or psychoanalysis and social lubrication) than succeeding at relationships, educational systems, or occupations, you can do just fine without answering them (per cultural standards).