5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
This is a pretty embarrassing page, simply from the standpoint of reasoning.
Worse yet, the error's been on this page since the get-go, it wasn't introduced by a
disruptive poster.
There are two ideas outlined in the course of this very short article that cannot
be brought into register. They are presented one sentence following the next.
one is the forest versus tree analogy.
two is the assertion that macroeconomics is the opposite of microeconomics.
Let's think about two in the context of one: would anyone seriously try to define
trees as the opposite of either a forest or forests generally?
I hope the original poster will one day have the opportunity to take an introductory
logic course.
Worse yet, the error's been on this page since the get-go, it wasn't introduced by a
disruptive poster.
There are two ideas outlined in the course of this very short article that cannot
be brought into register. They are presented one sentence following the next.
one is the forest versus tree analogy.
two is the assertion that macroeconomics is the opposite of microeconomics.
Let's think about two in the context of one: would anyone seriously try to define
trees as the opposite of either a forest or forests generally?
I hope the original poster will one day have the opportunity to take an introductory
logic course.