> The final clause does not actually follow from the rest of the logic
The final clause follows formally from the truth of the first two clauses. What you are complaining about is that the final clause is not true. But the question being asked of the study participants is not whether the argument is true, but whether the final clause follows if the first two are true. You are exhibiting exactly the behavior the study is testing: giving a wrong answer to a question of soundness by substituting for it a question of truth.
There is, perhaps, an argument to be made that "logical reasoning" in the sense being tested - being able to tell valid from invalid syllogisms - isn't all that pertinent in the real world. Is that what you're saying, though? I find it hard to tell.
> >Judge Wilson believes that if a living thing is not a person, then one has the right to end its life. She also believes that a fetus is a person. Therefore, Judge Wilson concludes that no one has the right to end the life of a fetus.
There is a logical problem with this argument, independent of any of the issues you bring up. Consider it divorced of context:
W believes: if an X is not Y, then it is a Z.
W believes: this particular X is Y.
W therefore believes: this particular X is not Z.
The problem is that just because (X & not Y --> Z), doesn't mean (X & Y --> not Z). In other words, thinking it's okay to end non-person's lives doesn't imply thinking it's _not_ okay to end person's lives. Concretely, for example, one might think killing in war is justified.
> All websites that are dangerous should be banned. Hacker News is a dangerous website. Therefore Hacker News should be banned.
> Cigarette smoking causes cancer. Things that cause cancer should be illegal. Therefore, cigarette smoking should be illegal.
> Things that can harm children should be taken away. Phones can harm children. Therefore, phones should be taken away
All of these function as the exact same logic posited in the study. A is B. B is C. Therefore, A is C. However, this really doesn't apply to the categories above because when you start talking about 'dangerous' or 'causes cancer' or 'harms children' etc there is a wide berth for rational disagreement.
That doesn't matter as long as the meaning of words remains the same throughout the argument.
Dangerous things should be banned.
Riding your bike without a helmet is dangerous.
Doing cocaine is dangerous.
Driving a car is dangerous.
Ergo, those three items listed above should be banned.
Are all of these actions equally dangerous? The answer almost everyone would give is no. That's where the bias enters into play. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all throughout.
>All drugs that are dangerous should be illegal. Marijuana is a drug that is dangerous. Therefore, Marijuana should be illegal.
The flaw with this question is that it's divorced completely from the cultural reality we live in. Cigarette smoking is legal, despite being dangerous. The final clause does not actually follow from the rest of the logic, because we have tangible examples of Drug A being Dangerous and Legal. People might think of this, and therefore disregard the conclusion. I don't think that would be the result of ideological impairment, but rather the result of people examining nuance.
>Judge Wilson believes that if a living thing is not a person, then one has the right to end its life. She also believes that a fetus is a person. Therefore, Judge Wilson concludes that no one has the right to end the life of a fetus.
This is just poorly worded. If something is not a person, then Wilson believes you have the right to terminate it. Since a fetus is a person, then no one has the right to terminate it. That logic does not necessarily follow from the initial statement; because the nuance there is that Wilson is expanding her personal logic into the logic of everyone else. Again, there's a bit of nuance in that people may personally not be for abortion, but believe that women still have the right to abortion despite their own personal beliefs.
The logic is also initially biased right from the start, since it implies that Wilson would also believe killing animals, pets etc is OK.
I don't think these two questions really resolve the issue of bias preventing sound reasoning, because it implies that the conclusion of the two questions was logical in the first place. They effectively managed to prove that two highly nuanced questions are, in fact, highly nuanced.