100%These are classic logic puzzles, so don't think about what makes intuitive sense or what the answer SHOULD be. Only consider what conclusions you can make based on the facts you are given.As for the water one, in reality scientists would contend that the observed molecule is not water. But in a broader, logical sense. The question said that that"we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition"very careful wording:the future examination of the substance which some are claiming would not be water is water by definition in the question ("examination of water")Since the thing examined is water by definition then it having a different molecular composition would require a broader definition of water. Tricky, but not unfair. You have to look at the wording closely. Good Test... I would have missed a couple if I hadn't read the questions twice. Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
These are classic logic puzzles, so don't think about what makes intuitive sense or what the answer SHOULD be.
Only consider what conclusions you can make based on the facts you are given.
As for the water one, in reality scientists would contend that the observed molecule is not water.
But in a broader, logical sense. The question said that that
"we can predict that every future examination of water will reveal the same chemical composition"
very careful wording:
the future examination of the substance which some are claiming would not be water is water by definition in the question ("examination of water")
Since the thing examined is water by definition then it having a different molecular composition would require a broader definition of water.
Tricky, but not unfair. You have to look at the wording closely.
Good Test... I would have missed a couple if I hadn't read the questions twice.