Hmm, snopes doesn't seem to be saying that this is not, in fact, an exam from 1895, just that current educational standards haven't declined since then. So? Neither the HN headline nor the article make the claim that snopes refutes. Strawman.
This is interesting, just because it illustrates how the world has changed since 1895.
It's a dumb question that implies a conclusion that the text doesn't support. Snopes addresses the falseness of the implication adequately, and we're reproducing much of their reasoning here.
It's not a dumb question at all. The world has changed in 115 years, and it's not at all a obvious that the average HN reader has the knowledge and skills that were deemed important in Kansas in 1895.
The question its self doesn't imply a conclusion. If you come to one, it's because you have knowledge of the questioner's intentions that I do not.
Pointing out a classic fallacy is hardly a quibble, and certainly not a question of semantics.
On the other hand, yes, it's quite true that all arguments appear in a specific context. I think we must live in quite different political contexts, though, because I don't see anything in the article that implies a decline in educational standards.
The title is, "Could You Have Passed the 8th Grade in 1895? Take a Look". Snopes does a perfectly good job of making the point that merely "taking a look" will not help you to answer that question.
Comments
Hmm, snopes doesn't seem to be saying that this is not, in fact, an exam from 1895, just that current educational standards haven't declined since then. So? Neither the HN headline nor the article make the claim that snopes refutes. Strawman.
This is interesting, just because it illustrates how the world has changed since 1895.
Could you have passed the 8th grade in 1895?
It's a dumb question that implies a conclusion that the text doesn't support. Snopes addresses the falseness of the implication adequately, and we're reproducing much of their reasoning here.
It's not a dumb question at all. The world has changed in 115 years, and it's not at all a obvious that the average HN reader has the knowledge and skills that were deemed important in Kansas in 1895.
The question its self doesn't imply a conclusion. If you come to one, it's because you have knowledge of the questioner's intentions that I do not.
This kind of "I never said that" semantic quibble raises one essential question: Have you stopped beating your elderly mother yet?
Things have implications beyond their explicit claims.
The two quibbles above seem nearly identical to me. It's interesting what role the assumptions of the audience play in their reaction to a statement.
I assumed that a snopes link would credit or discredit the claim (that this was a test from 1895.)
Pointing out a classic fallacy is hardly a quibble, and certainly not a question of semantics.
On the other hand, yes, it's quite true that all arguments appear in a specific context. I think we must live in quite different political contexts, though, because I don't see anything in the article that implies a decline in educational standards.
I've always preferred "Do you still beat your wife?"
Rolls off the tongue better.
The title is, "Could You Have Passed the 8th Grade in 1895? Take a Look". Snopes does a perfectly good job of making the point that merely "taking a look" will not help you to answer that question.