Alright Sup Forums, it's time to prove that you're not retarded. Can you answer this question that was written for British 7 year olds:
"There are 49 dogs signed up to compete in the dog show.
There are 36 more small dogs signed up to compete.
How many small dogs are signed up to compete?"
Do you make the grade?
Other urls found in this thread:
85
49 - 36 = 13
13 / 2 = 6.5
6.5 + 36 = 42.5
We don't know how many of the 49 initial dogs are small, 36+X is unsolvable by itself.
Surely that's impossible to know with the information given
>42.5 small dogs
>0.5
not an answerable question because if it says there are a certain amount and then tells you that there are more than the certain amount it is a contradiction, you cannot say "there are 20 jellybeans in a jar, there are 21 more yellow jellybeans in the jar, how many jellybeans are in the jar" that is not possible because then there aren't 20 jellybeans in the jar
how many yellow jellybeans are in the jar*
85 - X
X = Number of bigs dogs
36
I think that when it says "there are 49 dogs," the implication might be that there are
it says there are 49 dogs, therefore there are 49 dogs, you can't say there are 49 dogs and then hold a dog show with 1000 dogs
Yes you can, because if I had 1000 dogs in a jar, and I asked you if there were 24 dogs in the jar, you would say yes. There ARE 24 dogs in the jar. There is also an additional 976 dogs in the jar.
It was written by a 7 year old not FOR a 7 year old. He obviously made a grammar error and meant 36 dogs that are smaller in size. There are 36 small dogs. Fuck out of here you dense cunts
Ur a feget
Why would he/she treat "small dogs" as a separate variable if he's just going to ask for only the second variable? Is this kid fucking retarded or something?
The answer is in the video
youtu.be
Are you guys trolling? Or do you seriously not understand?
no u
I would say no there are more than 24 dogs in the jar, if you asked are there at least 24 dogs in the jar then i would say no, if you were to bring the jar to me and ask how many dogs are in the jar 24 would be a wrong answer because there are more than 24 dogs
It's meant to catch you out. Lrn2read
42 small dogs and 1 smol dog
What is small and what is large is merely perception. If we can deduce that there are 85 total dogs at the dog show, then 42 are small, 42 are large, and one dog is average in size. The answer is 42
Poorly written question is poorly written.
if it said 36 small dogs then it could be answerable but it says 36 more small dogs so it is unanswerable
>Can you answer this question that was written for British 7 year olds:
yes, i can
but that does not mean the answer will be the one that was expected
There is a mouse in the bucket.
Is there a mouse in the bucket?
That's this problem. I at 7 years old (and probably most people at that age) was solving way more difficult problems. This is not a 7 year old problem, because 7 year old's can do algebra. This is a 2 year old's question.
There are only "dogs" and "more small dogs"; There are no "small dogs"
=> 0 Small dogs
When I said 7 year old's can do algebra, I meant basic algebra.
The Answer is the same as your IQ, OP.
>85..
If it said "additional" instead of "more" it would be unanswerable.
So there are 49 dogs signed up.
36 more small dogs (than other dogs).
=> there are exactly 6.5 dogs signed up which are extra small and 42.5 small dogs.
Was easy, wasn't it?
It has to be 36. The 49 can be big dodge or even wolves but at least we know we have 36 doggies that are 100%going to be there
There are 5 mice. I add 5 more mice that are small. How many small mice are there?
It's not answerable because I didn't define the original mice. It's fair to guess that I intended to denote that the original mice were not small but it's equally fair to assume there might be small mice in the original batch. The question is not air tight and thus shit.
This
You are retarded bro fucking American education right there
>49 dog
>36 more small dogs
>more
therefore
49dogs are also small dogs
There are 49 dogs, and 36 more (additional) small dogs
>implying the original 49 were also small
>85 small dogs
Holy shit you guys are fucking dim
German fag here dumbass
seeing as this is britisch they mean 36 more small dogs than big ones so it would be 6.5 big and 42.5 small ones so the logic answer will be 6big 42 small and 1 medium one
When I learnt English, they told me you have to say “smaller” because “more small” is gramatically incorrect.
The language implies several scenarios
1) 36 small dogs have been added to a pool of 49 regular sized dogs.
2) 36 small dogs have been added to a pool of 49 dogs of unknown size
3) 36 small dogs have been added to a pool of 49 small dogs
A question this ambiguous is unanswerable. The thread is over retards.
If there's 36 dogs that are smaller than the small dogs, that means there's: 49-36
12 small dogs with a remainder of 1 (The average dog)
Its 36 more small than every other type. 42.5 is correct.
But 100% true that I do not ADD more dogs!
If you read the question carefully here's the information you should be getting from it: 1) there are 49 dogs in total, no more, no less, just 49
2) these 49 dogs are comprised of large and small dogs
3) there are 36 more small dogs than there are big dogs, all out of the total of 49 dogs.
The question wants you to find out how many small dogs of the 49 total there must be, so that the total of small dogs is 36 greater than the total of big dogs.
This guy has the answer:
I would take "mice" as a variable to begin with. Otherwise, why bother assigning them "5" if they are not the same? There are variables "mice" and "small mice." That's the way you're supposed to interpret it I think. If someone wants to dick with you and says "some of the mice from the original set were small mice," you can say "well that's not what you said."
>36 more small dogs
36 more than how many small dogs to begin with? This problem is badly phrased making it unsolvable.
i am korean.
all dogs have been eaten
36 more than there are big dogs out of the original 49
If you were saying something like "my penis is getting more small"
But in the context of "small dogs" saying "more small dogs" is fine
'There are 36 more small dogs than there are cats' is perfectly right. Isn't it?
That is the point. The question leaves variables vaguely defined in order to fuck with you. It's made as a meme to make people argue. The correct is answer is to point out the flawed delivery of info because any attempt to answer can be disproved.
The question does in fact never imply that there are more than 49 dogs
You're overthinking it.
There's 49 dogs signed up to the competition.
36 small dogs sign up at the last minute.
So now we need to find out how many of the 49 dogs are small.
49 + 1 (the average dog) / 2 = 25 + 36
51 small dogs.
I like to argue.
>Itt: ameritards don't know english well enough to answer a simple question, that had been answered by the second post
But if you say “more small dogs”, I understand you add more dogs the same size as the previous small ones, not smaller dogs.
Yes it does. "More small" is incorrect English if you want to say "smaller" so it could feasibly imply that more dogs are added.
See
Depends on how many I fuck to death in a meth fueled frenzy before it goes to panel selection committee.
See
But if there's 36 more small dogs than the 49 big dogs, there's only 36 dogs that are small
Wrong. It doesn't say that.
Also this.
That's not even a good trick.
That sentence is irrelevant. Not in the problem.
You're falling for a meme question and people are trying to save your dumb ass from arguing it. The whole point of this problem is to bait pseudo-intellectuals into arguing based on assertions about undefined variables.
The question purposly leaves out info. It should read "there are 36 more small gods than large gods, of the 49 gods" how many gods
I think this question is more about thinking logically rather than solving any equations. 49 dogs are signed up, 36 more are signed up implying that 49 are also small so the total of small dogs signed up is 36 + 49. Otherwise I don't think you can solve it.
The question doesn't say what there are 36 more small dogs of. Read
The answer is it's unanswerable to begin with. Its more of a grammar test because basic grammar rules say this problem is unfinished.
If no other small dogs are included in those initial 49, 36.
Anyway I am a bit triggered by the question though, how can assume species nowadays.
Zero gods
kek
36
You would think with all the autistic cunts that linger around here, maybe one of you could solve it
lol it relies on the lexical ambiguity of the word "more", either there are 85 small dogs or 36+X small dogs, more can have both meanings in both AME and BME, even AAVE would have this same ambiguity
We did
These posts do it.
You do understand that 7 years old don't know math and shit right? So answer is basically based on the logic - 36. Simple as that. You really think that 7 years old will tell you that answer is 42.5 or something? Christ I hate this websitet
>They said a 7 yo can answer it so it must be true
It's unanswerable.
If you write the question correctly, see:
The answer becomes:But you can't get half a dog without some animal cruelty, showing op was being a trolling cunt the whole time.