Last century, when I was at school, I heard tales of the interviews prospective students had to pass to get into various universities. One was for Philosophy at Reading University.
The prospective student went into the interview room to find a seated man looking at notes on a desk. Without looking up, the man said to you: “Sit down, please.”
There was no other chair in the room except the one on which the man sat,
If you said, “But there’s no chair,” you did not get into the university to read Philosophy… because you were not thinking clearly. The man had asked you to “sit down”, not to sit on a chair.
If you sat on the floor, the interview continued.
When I left school, I had an interview to read Philosophy at Bristol University. I got accepted, but decided instead to do Communication Studies (radio, TV, journalism, advertising) at what was then called The Polytechnic in Regent Street, London.
During my Philosophy interview at Bristol University, one verbal question I was asked on logic was…
1) There is snow on the tracks, therefore the train is late
2) The train is late, therefore there was snow on the tracks.
What is wrong with the logic?
I think I have met too many people since then who believe that, because a train is late, there was snow on the tracks.