[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
That’s true. I don’t see the logic of it, but that’s what it says. Logic tells me that when it says that the screws are being used, the person is taking those screws out of the jar of 96 and using them. For you, logic is telling you that someone has already taken the screws out of the jar and left 96 in there. Both of us had to make an assumption based off of what thought the most likely intent was.
[/quote]
But again, your assumption makes the initial statement untrue.[/quote]
No more than yours does.[/quote]
How so? There’s 96 screws in each jar. That never changes in the question or my explanation.
[quote]undoredo wrote:
I am pretty sure that the usage of “in” to indicate that A belongs to B, but A is not necessarily physically inside of B, is not correct if B is a concrete physical object that would ordinarily hold objects similar to A physically inside of it. The usage of “in” in the belonging sense would be for more abstract entities – a person is “in” a political party.
[/quote]
A screw is “in” a group of screws, part of that group is in a jar and part of it is being used.
[/quote]
But “group of screws” is not a logical antecedent for “one” and “another”. “Jar” appears to be the logical antecedent for “one” and “another”.
If we accept that “jar” is the logical antecedent for “one” and “another”; and if we also accept that “in” in the belonging sense is only properly used if its object is an abstract entity: then we must disregard something in order to arrive at the 2/5 answer. Just as we must disregard something else to arrive at the 15/32 answer.
I will admit that the disregarding that must be done to arrive at the 2/5 answer looks like the more likely-intended disregarding; but it is disregarding nonetheless.
[quote]undoredo wrote:
I am pretty sure that the usage of “in” to indicate that A belongs to B, but A is not necessarily physically inside of B, is not correct if B is a concrete physical object that would ordinarily hold objects similar to A physically inside of it. The usage of “in” in the belonging sense would be for more abstract entities – a person is “in” a political party.
[/quote]
A screw is “in” a group of screws, part of that group is in a jar and part of it is being used.
[/quote]
But “group of screws” is not a logical antecedent for “one” and “another”. “Jar” appears to be the logical antecedent for “one” and “another”.
If we accept that “jar” is the logical antecedent for “one” and “another”; and if we also accept that “in” in the belonging sense is only properly used if its object is an abstract entity: then we must disregard something in order to arrive at the 2/5 answer. Just as we must disregard something else to arrive at the 15/32 answer.
I will admit that the disregarding that must be done to arrive at the 2/5 answer looks like the more likely-intended disregarding; but it is disregarding nonetheless.
[/quote]
I am still thinking that the question probably isn’t worded exactly the same in the OP as he couldn’t even remember the 4 answers either.
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Yep, I got the same thing but, 15/32 was not a possible answer. I cannot remember what the choices were but two had 16 as the denominator one was a decimal and another was…can not remember.
[quote]tedro wrote:
BS in math.[/quote]
So basically you are used to really shitty questions like this to the point where you don’t even recognize them as shitty questions.
[quote]undoredo wrote:
But “group of screws” is not a logical antecedent for “one” and “another”. “Jar” appears to be the logical antecedent for “one” and “another”.
If we accept that “jar” is the logical antecedent for “one” and “another”; and if we also accept that “in” in the belonging sense is only properly used if its object is an abstract entity: then we must disregard something in order to arrive at the 2/5 answer. Just as we must disregard something else to arrive at the 15/32 answer.
I will admit that the disregarding that must be done to arrive at the 2/5 answer looks like the more likely-intended disregarding; but it is disregarding nonetheless.
[/quote]
What exactly is being disregarded in the solution to get to 2/5?
Jar is certainly the antecedent here, but each jar holds a group of screws to which the fraction in the jar and the fraction being used belong to. Nothing is being disregarded, although mathematically speaking I should probably be referring to the screws as a set and not a group. No assumption has to be made that all screws of a jar are in a set, for it is the only conclusion that does not require disregarding any of the facts presented in the question, namely that 96 screws are in each jar and some fraction of screws are being used.
[quote]tedro wrote:
BS in math.[/quote]
So basically you are used to really shitty questions like this to the point where you don’t even recognize them as shitty questions.
Would you write a question like this for a test?[/quote]
Didn’t I answer this question already? It depends on the test. I don’t like it as a middle school algebra question, but I do like it in one of the many reasoning/logic based tests such as the abstract reasoning section of the LSAT.
[quote]tedro wrote:
BS in math.[/quote]
So basically you are used to really shitty questions like this to the point where you don’t even recognize them as shitty questions.
Would you write a question like this for a test?[/quote]
Didn’t I answer this question already? It depends on the test. I don’t like it as a middle school algebra question, but I do like it in one of the many reasoning/logic based tests such as the abstract reasoning section of the LSAT.[/quote]
No, you didn’t because I didn’t ask that question. lol
[quote]undoredo wrote:
But “group of screws” is not a logical antecedent for “one” and “another”. “Jar” appears to be the logical antecedent for “one” and “another”.
If we accept that “jar” is the logical antecedent for “one” and “another”; and if we also accept that “in” in the belonging sense is only properly used if its object is an abstract entity: then we must disregard something in order to arrive at the 2/5 answer. Just as we must disregard something else to arrive at the 15/32 answer.
I will admit that the disregarding that must be done to arrive at the 2/5 answer looks like the more likely-intended disregarding; but it is disregarding nonetheless.
[/quote]
What exactly is being disregarded in the solution to get to 2/5?
Jar is certainly the antecedent here, but each jar holds a group of screws to which the fraction in the jar and the fraction being used belong to. Nothing is being disregarded, although mathematically speaking I should probably be referring to the screws as a set and not a group. No assumption has to be made that all screws of a jar are in a set, for it is the only conclusion that does not require disregarding any of the facts presented in the question, namely that 96 screws are in each jar and some fraction of screws are being used.
[/quote]
“In one 1/4 is being used in another 5/8, in another 3/4 …”
If we accept that “jar” is the logical antecedent for “one” and “another”; and if we also accept that “in” in the belonging sense is only properly used if its object is an abstract entity, then the above should mean the following:
“Physically inside one jar 1/4 is being used; physically inside another jar 5/8 is being used; physically inside another jar 3/4 is being used …”
In order to get 2/5 as the answer, we must disregard the implied statement (contained within the second sentence of the problem) that the 1/4 “being used” is physically inside the jar; the 5/8 “being used” is physically inside the jar; etc.
[quote]tedro wrote:
BS in math.[/quote]
So basically you are used to really shitty questions like this to the point where you don’t even recognize them as shitty questions.
Would you write a question like this for a test?[/quote]
Didn’t I answer this question already? It depends on the test. I don’t like it as a middle school algebra question, but I do like it in one of the many reasoning/logic based tests such as the abstract reasoning section of the LSAT.[/quote]
No, you didn’t because I didn’t ask that question. lol
So you would. That’s what I thought.
[/quote]
I like this question as a combined abstract reasoning and math problem 200 years in the future: if and only if the proper usage of “in” has expanded to include “belongs to”, even with a concrete object such as a jar.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Sorry, but it is. Each is an adjective and has to reference something, in this case the jars.[/quote]
Each can be used as more than an adjective (though this is besides the point in this particular case because its purpose does seem to be an adjective because any other purpose doesn’t really make sense), and in order for it to work as an adjective in that sentence you NEED A FUCKING COMMA.
And, as I mentioned, you can easily make the inference that “each” is attached to “jars”, because otherwise “each” becomes a pointless word. But it is still an inference, and the sentence is still horrible.
[quote]tedro wrote:
BS in math.[/quote]
So basically you are used to really shitty questions like this to the point where you don’t even recognize them as shitty questions.
Would you write a question like this for a test?[/quote]
Didn’t I answer this question already? It depends on the test. I don’t like it as a middle school algebra question, but I do like it in one of the many reasoning/logic based tests such as the abstract reasoning section of the LSAT.[/quote]
So, then would you put 1 as an answer? As a logic and reasoning question, the best answer to the question as it is written is 1.
[quote]tedro wrote:
BS in math.[/quote]
So basically you are used to really shitty questions like this to the point where you don’t even recognize them as shitty questions.
Would you write a question like this for a test?[/quote]
Didn’t I answer this question already? It depends on the test. I don’t like it as a middle school algebra question, but I do like it in one of the many reasoning/logic based tests such as the abstract reasoning section of the LSAT.[/quote]
So, then would you put 1 as an answer? As a logic and reasoning question, the best answer to the question as it is written is 1.
[/quote]
Now I think 1/1 seems right.
To get 15/32, we have to assume screws can be inside the jar and in use.
To get 2/5: we either have to assume “in” with an implied object of “jar” does not have to mean physically inside the jar; or else we have to assume “one” and “another” have an antecedent that is not quite exactly “jar”.
To get 1/1: we have to assume the antecedent for 1/4, 5/8, etc. is “1/4 of the jar” rather than “1/4 of the screws in the jar”.
The assumption that needs to be made to get to 1/1 looks like the least of the evils. Might even be perfectly reasonable: the most likely antecedent (for 1/4, 5/8 ,etc.) leads to an absurdity or a contradiction, so take the second most likely antecedent and go from there. 1/1 .
(But is it really that absurd for some of the screws inside the jar to be in use? What if each jar contains a mixture of loose screws, and little sub-assemblies that use some of the screws? In that case 15/32 seems pretty reasonable.)
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Yep, I got the same thing but, 15/32 was not a possible answer. I cannot remember what the choices were but two had 16 as the denominator one was a decimal and another was…can not remember.
I think there was an error.[/quote]
What class was this for maverick??[/quote]
It was a question in a study guide that also happened to be on the exam for an electrician apprenticeship.
Subjects were Math, Reading Comprehension and Mechanical Reasoning.
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Yep, I got the same thing but, 15/32 was not a possible answer. I cannot remember what the choices were but two had 16 as the denominator one was a decimal and another was…can not remember.
I think there was an error.[/quote]
What class was this for maverick??[/quote]
It was a question in a study guide that also happened to be on the exam for an electrician apprenticeship.
Subjects were Math, Reading Comprehension and Mechanical Reasoning.[/quote]
Did this fall under math? Assuming yes, then I would agree with others that this question, as worded, is not fitting for the subject matter but I stand by 2/5 as the only logical answer.
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
Yep, I got the same thing but, 15/32 was not a possible answer. I cannot remember what the choices were but two had 16 as the denominator one was a decimal and another was…can not remember.
I think there was an error.[/quote]
What class was this for maverick??[/quote]
It was a question in a study guide that also happened to be on the exam for an electrician apprenticeship.
Subjects were Math, Reading Comprehension and Mechanical Reasoning.[/quote]
Did this fall under math? Assuming yes, then I would agree with others that this question, as worded, is not fitting for the subject matter but I stand by 2/5 as the only logical answer.
[/quote]
Maybe. The sections were not labeled and would switch from one subject to another, which was weird.
On a brighter note I passed the exam and am now waiting for an interview date.