FACT: Each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other.
HYPOTHESIS: Every card that has a vowel on one side has an even number on its opposite side.
THE QUESTION: Which card or cards must you turn over in order to test the Hypothesis?
EXTRA CREDIT: Is it easier to prove a Hypothesis True or False?
Type your answer(s) in the Reply field below and Save.
The 15 possible answers to the first question are:
All four cards: Red Green Yellow Blue
Three cards: Red Green Yellow / Red Green Blue / Red Yellow Blue / Green Yellow Blue
Just two cards: Red and Green / Red and Yellow / Red and Blue / Green and Yellow / Green and Blue / Yellow and Blue
Just one card: Red Card only / Green Card only / Yellow Card only / Blue Card only
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
Just two cards: Red and Yellow.
Extra Credit: It is easier to prove a Hypothesis false.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Just two cards, red and yellow.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Red, Green, Blue, Yellow
Is it easier to prove a Hypothesis True or False?
I’ll say it’s true to prove a hypothesis but it depends on how you approach to prove a hypothesis or depending on how the words used in a sentence.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Just three cards: Red, green and Yellow.
I believe it is easier to prove a hypothesis false.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
In order to test the hypothesis, you must flip over the red and blue cards. Flipping over the red card will tell you if a card with a vowel has an even number on the other side or not and flipping over the blue card will tell you if a card with an odd number will have consonant or vowel on the other side. It is easier to prove a hypothesis to be false rather than true because you only need one exception to disprove the hypothesis while to prove it true, you must prove that the hypothesis is true in every scenario.
Got that right!
/Red Green Blue/ It is easier to prove false because 3 is odd and red and green aren’t vowels
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Just two cards: red and yellow
It’s easier to prove a hypothesis false because there is a large variety of false claims but limited true claims.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Red and Blue
It is easier to prove a hypothesis neither true or false. Either way you will have to gather enough sufficient data in order to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Technically whether or not you think one is easier than the other depends on whether you are a pessimist or an optimist.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Well, sort of. If the Hypothesis is of the “all” or “every” or “always” or “never” variety, a single exception can disprove it, while to prove it would require testing every case.
TWO CARDS : Red and Yellow
It is typically easier to disprove a theory (False) than to show it correct.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Three Cards: Red Yellow Blue
It’s seems to be easier to prove a Hypothesis as false, because when you’re searching for supporting fact or evidence to prove your hypothesis you will inadvertently find both contradicting and supporting evidence. It’s much more unlikely to find supporting evidence for a hypothesis if you’re only purposely looking for contradicting evidence only, to prove it false.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
3 cards: red, yellow, blue
Two Cards: red and yellow
Question: It is easier to prove a hypothesis false than to prove that it is correct.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Two Cards: Blue and Yellow
I believe that it depends on what the hypothesis is. Is the hypothesis outlandish? Or is it sensible and broad? A more adventurous hypothesis may be easier to prove false, but a broad hypothesis will be easier to validate. That is not to say that the inverse is not also true, though.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Yeah, those “false inverses” will get you every time. (Well, not you.)
3 cards Red/Yellow/Blue
I think its easier to prove a hypothesis true if thats your only goal. If your goal is to prove your hypothesis true and investigate all options thoroughly then it is easier to prove it false.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
I see what you mean. You can prove a hypothesis true by cheating.
You have to turn over three cards: red, blue, and yellow
It is easier to prove a hypothesis as false, most of the time finding information that proves a hypothesis as false is easier to find and gather data from than finding data and proof that it is true.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
In my opinion, just 2 cards: red and yellow., because the Letter E is a vowel, not G
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
All four cards.
I say this mainly because it is easier to prove the Hypothesis false. We know for a fact that all cards have a number on them, no matter the letter or number. Yet your hypothesis is based on the notion that a certain combination of number and letter, even and vowel, are true.
To anyone else, they could see your hypothesis as pure statistics, and that while there may well be a large amount of cards that prove this exact hypothesis, any deviation would prove it entirely wrong. If you flipped a card with an even number, and either due to chance, misprint, or more, and it didn’t have a vowel, how could we trust the hypothesis you’ve proven time and time again, when this one card is off?
Without any overarching evidence, you cannot prove something based on cards being flipped one way or the other, when there are always more cards to be flipped.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Actually, it’s quite simple to disprove a hypothesis of the sort we’ve written here. Any single example of a vowel card that does not bear an even number on its reverse side disproves that ALL vowel cards have that quality.
Just Two. the Red E card, and the Blue 3 card. You check the one guaranteed vowel to see if it has an even number on the other side. You don’t need to check G since you don’t need to worry about consonants, as nothing relating to that card in particular would immediately prove the hypothesis one way or the other. You don’t need to check the 2 card, because that is already an even number. Whether or not there is a vowel or consent on the other side is pointless, because the Hypothesis is about Vowels having even numbers on the back, not Even numbers having vowels. It says nothing about Even numbers NEVER being on the backs of consonants. Then you check the 3, because if there is a vowel on the other side the hypothesis is proven incorrect.
Despite this, I think that proving a hypothesis false is likely easier than proving one to be true. Because a hypothesis is an idea brought into the world to be proven or not, it’s already “not proven” until it is made proven, or, convinced the reader otherwise. So because “not proven” or “false” is the default, that makes it the easier state.
Lovely thinking. Except “disproven” is not the same as “not proven.”
You could turn over red, yellow, green and blue.
Since red is a vowel, turning it over would show if there is an even number behind it or not. To further prove the hypothesis, one could turn over yellow as well, since the number 2 is on the card. Turning this over would show if there is a vowel on the other side, further proving or denying the hypothesis. Say both the red and yellow card proved to hold true to the hypothesis, one could turn over the green card that holds a non vowel letter. If behind the green card is an even number, the hypothesis would be false, if it did hold an even number, it’d be proven true. The same goes for the blue card since three is an uneven number.
Its easier to prove a hypothesis false, as finding evidence for something to be true tends to prove more difficult.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
You could turn over all the cards, but the question was which cards “must” you turn over?
Al four cards would need to be overturned in order to answer if the hypothesis is true or false. The red card and the yellow card would both need to be turned over to decide if the hypothesis is true that cards withy even numbers have vowels on the other side. Then the green card should be turned over to see if there is a odd number on the other side.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Odd numbers don’t contribute to any positive proof. But they could disprove the hypothesis.
Two Cards: Red and Blue
I think it is easier to prove a hypothesis false because all it takes is one instance that goes against the hypothesis to prove it to be incorrect. However to prove the hypothesis to be true, there would have to be enough evidence to persuade the observer, which could take thousands of instances.
To prove this particular hypothesis true, ALL instances would have to be tested.
Two cards : Red and Blue
It seems easier to prove the hypothesis false. If you turn over the red card and it doesn’t have an even number you’ve proven it false, same with blue.
Agreed.
I would flip over all the cards.
I think it is easier to prove a hypothesis false, because even if a hypothesis is mostly true, there may still be exceptions and therefore the truth in the statement may be debatable.
You might, but the question was what “must” you do?
As for debate, a single exception to this hypothesis disproves it.
In order to test the hypothesis you would need to turn over two cards. The red and yellow cards.
It’s easier to prove that a hypothesis is false. There’s plenty of evidence that can argue against said hypothesis.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
I would say that all four cards should be turned over. You need to see if there is a vowel behind the 3, if there’s an even number behind the E, If there’s an uneven number behind the G, and a vowel behind the 2 card to prove the hypothesis true.
Extra Credit: It is easier to prove a hypothesis false because it’s always easier to argue against something in my opinion.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
G and 2 are irrelevant.
two cars, red and yellow.
Green and Yellow are irrelevant.
Since this riddle does not put a limit clause (since these riddles like to lawyer-up) such as “only flip over 2” or “only the minimal number of cards” I would flip every card I could get my hand on. Everyone know the more data you can gather for research the better chance your research results will be more accurate. What better way to look for the truth than with nothing hidden from you; no slight of hand.
As to if something is easier to prove or disprove, well it depends on if you like to cherry pick or not. I jest, but some people get paid to do this. Not uncommon in politics or in advertising; companies won’t tell you if their product is giving you cancer but will cherry pick any tests that point to health benefits.
I would say I do not like to assume when it comes to these matters. There are infinite questions one could ask to prove or disprove. I would also add that many might go unresolved; take the “god of the gaps issue” for example. It is therefore I am hesitant to parade around declaring one easier than the other.
Humor me if you will: men are not into makeup. All of them? No. Must it be untrue then? Well, most men shy away from using makeup. Biology and psychology can be quite dynamic with nature versus nurture etc. But put me in a room with 10 randomly chosen people selected from the pool of adults in U.S., and without hearing their voices, I am going guess each one that I find out uses makeup, is a woman. And I would be right most of the time. Enough so to make me a billionaire marketing to women, instead of relying on the debunked hypothesis and trying to market to men.
(I can hear the counter argument what if no one has tried male marketing? Shhhh or we will spar back and forth all night until everything means nothing.)
Perhaps what I am getting at, the moral of the story, is that it is just as important to prove the positive and the negative of your hypothesis, not just one and assume the rest. Not to imply any assuming is going around.
As for a limiting clause, the instruction “must turn over” is different than “would like to turn over.” Similarly, while you can interpret “men” any way you like, “all men,” or in this case, “every card,” forces a certainty. Love the way you play this game!