My Life in the Bush of Wombats

I got 15 right. On review, I am certain that I missed #7, #12, #16, and #18, and I'm pretty sure I missed #9. I am still not even sure what #7 is asking. Feel free to spoil it for me if you know.

From:

Oh, and I actually knew the facts behind #16; however, doing the math in my head, I somehow concluded that 100 > 104.

From:

?

12 is the smallest number there.

Now, post-metabolization, there might be a different retention of weight, but is that what the question was asking?

From:

Sorry, I mean 100 > 108.

A gram of fat, canonically, has 9 calories. A gram of either protein or digestible carbohydrate has 4. So 12 grams of fat = 108 while 25 grams of protein = 100. As I said, I did the math in my head, got the write numbers, and thought that 108 was the lowest of them.

From:

I am perhaps being too oblique.

If you ingest 12 g of fat, you are 12 g heavier (before metabolization, excretion, and retention). If you ingest 25 g of protein, you are 25 g heavier. 25 > 12. So ingesting 12 g of fat makes you less heavy at the time of ingestion.

From:

Ah-hah! I just figured out #7 and confirmed that I am right.

Gur svefg svir jbeqf rnpu pbagnva gur pbeerfcbaqvat ibjry, nybat jvgu fbzr bguref. Guhf, gur fvkgu jbeq zhfg pbagnva "l".

From:

Fcrpvsvpnyyl, gur guveq yrggref bs gur jbeqf ner gur ibjryf va beqre (nf uvagrq).

From:

Oh, yes. Hadn't realized it was that specific.

From:

bugsybanana.livejournal.com

Go you! I got 12 right. No clue what #7 means, but I guessed (a) 'cause it sounded best.

From:

I got 17 (99.37%). Probably #7, #12 are total guesses. #8, #9, #14, #18 are partial guesses. #20, I made a clockwork stab at what the question was about, from which the answer is easy; otherwise, it's a total guess.

So my actual knowledge is around 13 and I'm a pretty good guesser.

The test isn't actually meaningful, of course; a bit of math, some random knowledge, and the ability to take tests are all that are needed.

From:

Oh, and there's a difference between the answer they wanted on the moon question, and the correct answer according to the English language, which does not treat negatives like logical operators.

From:

Actually, they're the same answer if you treat multiple negatives as intensifiers.

From:

With not treated logically, (-1)^5 = -1 = your mom. Treating adjacent nots as intensifiers, there are two instances of negation (not a person who did not step) = Neil.

That being said, when I read the sentence out loud, I read the first set of negatives as intensifiers, but I actually read the second with negative scoping "has not (not set foot)", which brings us back to your mom; but mostly, it goes to point out that the sentence is likely to be perceived as ambiguous in actual discourse and to require clarification.

From:

avram

[...] the English language, which does not treat negatives like logical operators.

While your complaint is not untrue, their answer is not incorrect.

I don't want no misunderstanding here -- there are widely accepted English idioms where two negatives evaluate as an intense single negative. But it ain't the case that there's no contrariwise examples.

From:

I overspoke initially. I don't think the English parsing is opposite their desired answer. I now think that there is no English parsing that all communicants will agree about.

Negative scoping, negative polarity items, implicit negativity, and the like are important and complicated topics in English grammar, and pop up often on Language Log.

From:

kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com

I only started it, then quit when I saw that the questions aren't at all abstract -- the fifth question required a knowledge of golfing terms -- so their talk about "smarter" is total BS.

From:

"Having vast amounts of random knowledge" often goes hand in hand with "smart". There are smart people who don't have lint-trap minds, and dumb people who know an awful lot of trivia, but they do correlate.

That said, the distribution of random knowledge is not very smooth--at least two questions hinge on sports, which is ludicrous.

From:

14 out of 20 here.

Guessing my wrong ones: #1 (I would like them to specify the rules of Russian roulette, there are variants), #7 (looks like a mnemonic to me, but I don't know what for), #9 (round about there I decided that I should do it on my own head-knowledge, not use Google, and I'm really not sure about the relative values of the precious metals), #16, #18 (no clue about Australian rules football, still less about most of the answers), and #20 -- although on #20 I did succeed in finding the question (and again, which dictionary?).

From:

Heh. You're ahead of me on #20.

From:

The trick to that one is that the question is in white text on the white background. If you highlight it, you'll be able to read it. It's something like, "Which of these words is not found in the dictionary?"

From:

Yeah. As soon as you said "finding the question", I found it. When I originally tackled the question, I started working under the assumption that the goal was to deduce the question from the answers.

From:

I assumed Russian Roulette was being played with one loaded chamber. Actually, the answer is the same with up to four loaded chambers.

From:

Depends: When you say "two rounds", does that mean you spin the chamber both times? Or do you spin it once and then pull the trigger twice? You get different answers.

(Though that one is so skewed, either way, that how can only 23% of people get it right?)

From:

Okay, so I just went through the test answering only the first question, and it turns out that they want the coins.

I can only assume that they're assuming Russian Roulette is played with one empty chamber...in which case the coins give a 1/32 chance of living and the other three all give 1/36. So that's another one of my wrong ones. It does explain why so few people get that one.

From:

That's one that I actually should have gotten wrong, but I chose the coins--I somehow took the "six-shooter" to mean that they were going for the 1/36 odds in all three cases.

From:

I made exactly the same mistake.

From:

That's a bizarre way of playing. Not that I've ever seen it played, of course.

From:

...and it turns out I got #15 wrong due to being unable to correctly add 55 and 10. Sigh.

From:

I got 16 right, and no idea which ones I missed, except the one that involved Australian rules football (of which I know nothing), and #19. As far as I could tell #19 had no correct answer. Since no one else seems stumped by it I obviously missed something, but I still can't see what.

From:

Except my random guess on the football turned out to be correct, so I guess three of the things I thought I knew, I don't.

From:

"the former use of ladder" is 7 -- the first "ladder" is word #7. "the latter use of foreman" is 13, the thirteenth word in the two sentences. Add those, get 20. Count up to the next prime number, 23. What's the problem?

From:

I was counting letters for some bizarre reason. By coincidence, the example they give works out if you count letters by sentence (as opposed to across both sentences).

From: