Logic game

[tardograd2]

So, what you do is you take the conclusion from the above post, and take it as a premise alongside another premise, and use a syllogism to provea new conclusion.

SEED CONCLUSION:
It is raining

 

[Fawfulthegreat64]

(The explanation is hard to interpret but I'll do what I think you mean)

It is raining and a dog walks inside.

Conclusion: There's a wet dog in your house

 

[tardograd2]

There is a wet dog in your house
There is not a wet dog in your house
Therefore, George Washington is made of rakes

 

[rollerC]

Therefore, George Washington is made of rakes

What

 

[Alex95]

idgi

 

[Lin Beifong]

George Washington is made of rakes
George Washington walked on a carpet once
Therefore, Bethesda was actually on to something when they designed an AI system that makes old ladies rake their carpets.

 

[tardograd2]

George Washington is made of rakes
George Washington walked on a carpet once
Therefore, Bethesda was actually on to something when they designed an AI system that makes old ladies rake their carpets.

That isn't valid logic.

 

[Duskull]

There is a wet dog in your house
There is not a wet dog in your house
Therefore, George Washington is made of rakes

And this is?

 

[tardograd2]

There is a wet dog in your house
There is not a wet dog in your house
Therefore, George Washington is made of rakes

And this is?

From contradiction, anything follows