Heads up: this browser isn't saving anything for this site, so progress and settings reset when you leave the page. Everything still works while you're here.
Some of DeduceQuest’s cast are still learning. When you teach them, YOU learn it best — catch what they get wrong, then quiz them.
Teach Rulewright
You be the teacher — Rulewright is still learning. Helping Rulewright figure it out is the practice. (Rulewright's progress stays on this device; nothing is sent anywhere.)
🎓 In a minute you'll be the teacher. Get ready to teach Rulewright: guess-the-rule induction.
To test a rule, try examples that could BREAK it, not only ones you expect to fit. If 2, 4, 6 fits, try something like 1, 2, 3. A rule is only strong once it survives your tries to break it.
You've helped them one at a time. The real understanding is how the ideas CONNECT — teach that next.
Rulewright (guess-the-rule induction (form a hypothesis, then test it)) ×Vary (controlling variables (change ONE thing at a time))
You guess "it turns green when the number is even". How do you test it WITHOUT fooling yourself?
Rulewright then says: “To test it fast, I'll change the number AND the color AND the size all at once.” — is that right?
The link: Vary is what makes Rulewright's test valid — one change at a time turns a guess into evidence.
Now they see it: a hypothesis is only as good as the controlled test behind it.
Tablo (logic-grid deduction (eliminate possibilities in a grid)) ×Whittle (code-narrowing (never hunt — narrow TOWARD the answer))
What do logic-grid puzzles and code-narrowing have in common about HOW you find the answer?
Tablo then says: “In a logic grid you just guess the whole solution and see if it fits.” — is that right?
The link: Tablo and Whittle are the same move — narrowing by elimination until one possibility remains.
Now they see it: deduction isn't finding the answer — it's removing everything that isn't it.
Cogent (deductive vs inductive reasoning) ×Contra (proof by contradiction (assume the opposite, watch it break))
Is "assume the opposite and show it's impossible" a deductive proof or an inductive guess?
Cogent then says: “Proof by contradiction is inductive — it's just noticing the opposite usually fails.” — is that right?
The link: Contra is a member of Cogent's deductive family — certainty by ruling the opposite impossible.
Now they see it: contradiction isn't a trick — it's deduction turned inside-out.
Capstone — crack the mystery
A locked-room mystery lands on your desk. Each part below needs ONE of the cast's ideas — bring in the right reasoner for each.
Sort the solid clues from the mere hunches.
Who do you bring in?
Cross-check each witness's clue against the others.
Who do you bring in?
Cross out suspect–room–time combos the clues rule out.
Who do you bring in?
Form a theory of the culprit, then test it against a new clue.
Who do you bring in?
Prove one suspect can't be guilty by showing their story forces an impossibility.
Who do you bring in?
Notice what you just did: no single move cracked the case — you PICKED the right reasoning for each step and connected them. That's what real deduction means.
The whole cast, working together — because you taught each one and saw how they fit.
Each idea is a person you teach. A filled circle is one you can teach; a solid line is a connection you've taught. Fill the map by teaching the cast + their connections.
