Subsequently, in response to further comments by Dr. Lee, he wrote an extended article entitled "Wrong Facts and Faulty Logic" that appeared in The Straits Times on 18 September 2008.
One would also be wrong, because logic rarely applies to the most counterintuitive of sports.
"It teaches computational and algorithmic thinking [solving problems that don't have right or wrong solutions], logic, trial and error, collaboration.
It would be wrong, the logic went, to consult the people once every half a century on an institution that had grown its own Parliament, President and currency since we last checked in on it.
It would be wrong, the logic went, to consult the people once every half a century on an institution that had grown its own Parliament, President, and currency since we last checked in on it.
How could macroeconomists have gotten such a basic relationship exactly wrong?The basic logic of the argument is as follows.
Something has gone wrong: maybe the logic was screwy (how can an egg have an egg?); maybe a kind of barnyard hubris, "scooping up / both possibilities," has brought them, mother and baby, to this unimaginable impasse.
Based on your research, what's wrong with this logic?
Ironically, one of the most famous illustrations of what is wrong with this logic is the "Laffer Curve" promoted by libertarian economist Arthur Laffer that shows the obvious fact that neither 0% nor 100% is an ideal tax rate.
Nothing wrong with that logic, but sadly she trots out (at least four times) one of the most banal expressions of the past decade to make her point--America, she says, is at a "tipping point".
