This exercise asks one narrow question: if all stated premises were true, would the conclusion have to be true? The eight arguments use invented categories so real-world beliefs do not decide the answer. For an invalid argument, supply one possible case where every premise is true and the conclusion false. For a valid argument, state the short chain that makes a counterexample impossible. Plausibility, confidence and factual truth are not substitutes for validity. The cards are untimed and may be represented in plain language, symbols, audio or diagrams. Do not transfer the score to intelligence, general rationality or consequential legal, clinical, financial, employment or security judgments; those require domain expertise and accountable review. Stop if the drill becomes an intelligence comparison, high-pressure timed test or tool for a real dispute.
This dossier explains the evidence and its limits. It is not a diagnosis, personal recommendation, assessment, clearance, performance promise or training programme. Actionable teaching appears only when the canonical Power record explicitly authorises it.
Complete bounded explanation
What this power means.
Capability to develop or express deductive reasoning in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports
Deductive reasoning on specified problems may improve with structured practice, but the active-control advantage and durable transfer remain uncertain.
How to observe or measure it without overclaiming
Declare formalism, language, item novelty, active control, response accuracy, explanation, delay and transfer domain; one task is not general rationality.
Myth
Become perfectly logical
Metric
Accuracy and explanation on predeclared novel deduction problems after delay
Boundary
A logic-task gain does not prove global intelligence or better high-stakes decisions.
Negative and limiting findings
The training app did not outperform its active control.
Abstract logic principles alone had little effect unless mapping to concrete examples was made available.
Neither source tested durable retention or consequential real-world transfer.
Claims this evidence cannot support
become perfectly logical
logic app raises intelligence
never make a reasoning error
deductive score proves rationality
Evidence guide frame · non-prescriptive
A guide frame—not a training protocol.
Explain deductive performance on declared problems without presenting a logic task as general rationality or high-stakes judgment.
What this frame may discuss
Evidence and measurement boundaries for deductive reasoning
Task specificity, access configurations and negative findings
Limits on transfer, efficacy and authority
Conceptual observations
Conceptually separate applying a formal rule from mapping that rule onto a concrete example.
Distinguish accuracy from the quality and verifiability of an explanation.
Reflection prompts
Which assumptions and formalism make the conclusion follow?
What real-world facts would remain outside the deduction?
What it cannot establish
A logic-task gain does not prove global intelligence or better high-stakes decisions.
It cannot establish: become perfectly logical.
It cannot establish: logic app raises intelligence.
It cannot establish: never make a reasoning error.
It cannot establish: deductive score proves rationality.
Accessibility alternatives
Plain language, symbols, audio or diagrams may represent the same benign problem.
Declared tools and extra processing time are valid configurations.
No timed problem set or intelligence comparison is requested.
Non-participation remains valid: Yes.
Stop and escalation boundaries
Stop if the frame becomes an intelligence test, timed drill or consequential decision rule.
Do not apply it to legal, clinical, financial, employment or security judgments.
Consequential decisions require qualified domain review, current evidence and accountable human judgment.
Prohibited uses
Logic drills, timed targets, scoring, ranking or progression.
General-intelligence, rationality or decision-authority claims.
Operational high-stakes decision rules.
No collection or scoring: this page requests no answers, stores nothing and produces no personal or Titan result.
This exercise asks one narrow question: if all stated premises were true, would the conclusion have to be true? The eight arguments use invented categories so real-world beliefs do not decide the answer. For an invalid argument, supply one possible case where every premise is true and the conclusion false. For a valid argument, state the short chain that makes a counterexample impossible. Plausibility, confidence and factual truth are not substitutes for validity. The cards are untimed and may be represented in plain language, symbols, audio or diagrams. Do not transfer the score to intelligence, general rationality or consequential legal, clinical, financial, employment or security judgments; those require domain expertise and accountable review. Stop if the drill becomes an intelligence comparison, high-pressure timed test or tool for a real dispute.
OrientRead the definition, evidence, measurement boundary and prohibited claims on this canonical page.
BaselineOpen the governed lesson and record its declared baseline before practising.
PractiseFollow the ordered lesson exactly; do not add dose, intensity or claims.
RetestUse the lesson's delayed retention and predeclared transfer checks as separate records.
Maintain or retireKeep only what remains useful inside the evidence and safety boundary.
Authority boundary: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits. The method is Power-specific; its actionability follows this treatment.
Citation roles are explicit. A source may support existence or trainability while simultaneously limiting transfer, certainty, generalisation or safety.
Robert A. Cortes; Adam B. Weinberger; Adam E. Green · 2023 · Primary research
Current teaching and evidence boundary
The next gate remains visible.
No external confirmation is required for the current bounded explainer and non-prescriptive guide-frame permissions; any stronger efficacy, generalisation, protocol, promotion or independent-validation claim requires a new adjudication.
A separately governed practical lesson is available at /tutorials/pwr-113/. Its safe configuration, prerequisites, ordered practice, measurement, stopping, accessibility, retention, transfer and review rules remain controlling.