2 questions. Qtn 1: A survey reveals that people who have bigger foot are wiser. Qtn 2: from monkeys to human?

#1 : students from 6 - 16 years old were given a test based on their age, and it was found that children with smaller foot were, on the average, only able to answer questions at their level. on the other hand, children with bigger foot, were able to answer their questions faster, and also were able to take on questions meant for higher age groups.





could you, tell me, what fallacies has been observed in this survey?





#2 : humans have some genes that are similar with apes. therefore, consider this, humans must have originated from the same ancestors as the apes.





how many fallacies did you identify in this argument?





PS - im not here to debate on the topic, im just here to see if anyone capable of logic and fallacies could answer this on an objective level.

2 questions. Qtn 1: A survey reveals that people who have bigger foot are wiser. Qtn 2: from monkeys to human?
#1 The biggest fallacy is that of false assumption. It isn't stated what the test was testing for (intelligence is assumed, but not confirmed). Furthermore, it is assumed that answering questions faster is desirable. And it is assumed that being "able to take on questions meant for higher age groups" is a good thing (it doesn't state how well the children were able to do on those questions).





Additionally, saying "on average" could very well be misleading. Is this mean, median, or mode? Is this variation even significant? Seems like meaningless innuendo.





But then again, all of those are flaws I observed in the survey; you just asked what fallacies were observed in the survey, to which I would point out that there were no such observations in the survey.





#2 This one could have quite a few fallacies all related to the same theme, but I am going to go with false assumption again (though I could make an argument for post hoc ergo propter hoc). Similar things are not necessarily forced to have similar origins. For example, two tables might share much in common (being table shaped, being made out of wood, being finished with a nice cherry stain and lacquer, etc), but that doesn't mean that they came from the same tree, forest, factory, or even continent. To offer an exaggerated example of this statement, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings both use a very large number of the same or similar words; therefore they must have been written by the same author.





Admittedly, I am rather rusty at IDing logical fallacies (alas, I don't even recall all their names correctly). But then again, that might be taken as an appeal to pity logical fallacy itself.
Reply:LOL, you've evolved from the paradox to the fallacy. Just Me, you like watching the mice run through the maze, don't you? I'll keep my answer to myself for obvious reasons. Good to see you posting again.
Reply:The first part, it seems to me, most likely indicates that, among people who are still growing (the 6-16 age range cited), those with larger body parts (feet, in this case) are likely to be somewhat more developed than their peers, and therefore might test as somewhat more advanced. Beyond that, I don't see any meaning, because I don't see any basis in the information provided to presume a correlation between foot size and intelligence.





On the second point, the main fallacy I can identify would be the presumption that anyone has put forth the argument you describe. The genetic similarity between humans and other primates (which runs about 90+%, a bit more than "some") is only one element _supporting_ evolutionary theory, not the basis for the theory itself. In fact, that genetic similarity was entirely undiscovered when the various evolutionary theories got their start.
Reply:Just know this: God created man AND the monkey. But they are totally separate living beings. Please don't insult yourself any more than you have to, consdering you started out with that foot question.

choosing rain roots