| Duoas (6752) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is supposed to be a smart game, but I keep finding cards like these. They are incorrect. Do you know why? A big hint in all of them is that the game relies on idiom puns and other misinformation and misdirection, which is characterized as "lateral thinking". Here is a freebie to explain what I am talking about:
Perhaps, but that isn't what the question asked. Italicizing the words are and is asks an explicit comparison between them -- thereby specifically discounting any other issues with the sentence. The game tricks you by changing the common meaning -- in other words, by twisting written and visual idioms. In this case, the trick is the same as bringing someone over to a wrecked car, pointing to one of the deflated tires and asking how to fix it. If the answer is that the car needs a new engine and a paint job etc then the question about the tire was not actually answered. Here's another:
Real Answer: Actually, there is a significant difference. The real answer is b, because any knot weakens a rope. Any time you put bends or folds in something, you weaken it. Structural engineers know this. Here is an origami that bends the way it does by capitalizing on the difference between the weak edges and strong planes in the paper: https://www.math.lsu.edu/~verrill/origami/parabola/ Here's more. Can you spot the errors? This one plays semantics:
This one plays the question not asked:
This one plays idioms:
Here is a favorite of mine. Even though the answer is correct the explanation is totally bogus:
Here is another favorite. This one's logic is twisted by some bad business sense right at the start, and gets worse from there:
I'm sure they were using Weedster's Dictionary on this one:
Well, that's it for my 'ppl r stoopid' rant. I bet the guys who wrote this nonsense sit around in their MENSA meetings thinking they are smart. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| xerzi (605) | ||
I normally start mine with two sticks :P. | ||
|
Last edited on
|
||
| Duoas (6752) | |
|
LOL. The key word in that one is 'what'. The supplied answer could not have been given had the word been 'which'. The problem with the answer is that the text is not unrelated. Presenting the two sentences together implies relation, meaning that the word 'what', even though it is not an explicit reference, is still an anaphor referring to the list of items given. Hence, giving an answer outside of the list dodges the question. Duncan will obviously need some other ignition device, like a match or lighter (or two sticks) to light his kindling or lamp or whatever, and he will obviously have to light that before he gets to torch his reading material. If I were Duncan, I'd start with the kindling in the fireplace. That would warm me up enough to bundle up and live off the heat from the kerosene lantern once the fire is exhausted. I wouldn't bother with the newspaper -- he wouldn't get any appreciable warmth from it. | |
|
|
|
| maeriden (339) | |
| If you ask me, answering correctly means that you lack common sense, not that you are smart | |
|
|
|
| helios (10258) | |||
I do love the one about the spinning wheel. It's like whoever made that question wrote themselves into a corner and tried to weasel their way out by making some vague reference to a recursive process. Basically, P & magic! => Q. Before answering yes or no, though, with a game this cheating I would ask for "rotation" to be defined mathematically. Different definitions can lead you to different answers. I just realized there's possibly some trickery here:
Using perfectly formal logic, the correct answer would be "no" because the center rotates independently of the relative movements of objects at different distances from it. In reality, both are consequences of a common cause (the rotation of the wheel as a whole). | |||
|
Last edited on
|
|||
| Duoas (6752) | |
| Exactly! :O) | |
|
|
|