3rd year philosophy logic exam

yargle

OK, let me get this straight. Is it logical that, when you forget what has been done in the previous year and create a course assuming that you have previously covered material that has not been covered, that you do all of what you assumed has been done as well has all that you wanted to get done, squeezing highly complicated work into 12 lectures? Would it also be logical that, as there is so much stuff to get through, you would only cover essential material, and not,say, something COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT* to the exam! Is it also not logical that a sample paper should be an indication of the format of the exam, and not COMPLETELY DIFFERENT IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE, with one third of the sample paper being made up of COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL!



*= Though a logic course that featured no irrelevant material would...eh, well it wouldn't really exist now would it?!?!?!?

Paul Tergat

That's a noodle scatcher alright :rolleyes:

An Bradán Feasa

Watch Carol Vorderman's Brain Game on Sky 1 for all the answers you'll ever need...

singingstranger

My guess is that the OP was actually the exam itself.

pretty*monster

Yeah, I heard that logic was a bit sh*t.
On the plus side Mooney came out to the 3rd phil party in Messers.

Dr. Octagon

It isn't very logical to bank on a certain style of paper now is it?

Your lecturer is on the ball...