I don't believe any of you. England may have a fourth of July alright, but a Fourth? And the 30 divided by 1/2? Come on. But then again, I'm way too smart already. But Moses marrying his widow's sister was nice.
I didn't really understand the Moses - Ark one, or what it had to do with this test. Most of these questions were 'riddles', but this question had nothing to do with that, and more to do with actual fact-knowledge.
So that would be like the 'Outs' in an 'innings' when it didn't even state which sport it was talking about.
I assumed cricket - it seems they meant baseball :- )
The "Moses" question is a test of comprehension, to see if one is really paying attention, or skimming along and filling in gaps between "highlight" words:
"How many animals of each sex did take on the ark?"
Many people recognize the less-common highlighted words and, since members of all three abrahamic religions are familiar with the story, simply see a "Biblical name" in the proper grammatical location and fail to see that it's the wrong name. Similar to the "Marry his sister's widow ..." question.
I thought there were three outs per side in each inning in cricket also?
But only Moses and baseball require knowledge that isn't necessarily universal. The rest can still be deduced logically but with Moses, very specific religious information is needed.
Even if you didn't know what a "pill" might be, you could still figure out the number of minutes. If you don't know who Moses is logic isn't going to help you one whit.
This is the point I was trying to make. Seems this question (and also baseball) deviate from the other questions, in that the others are more riddles and can be solved by logic, while these two questions require knowledge of something.
I thought there were three outs per side in each inning in cricket also?
AFAIK, it's ten
Dang! -- no wonder it takes a whole weekend to play a single match ...
No "intelligence" test will be free of bias or flaw in some way -- this one is pretty typical, so typical that it's completely derivative: I got them all right because I've seen all of those questions somewhere before. ;-)
I find the question (or rather the answers) to the "man marrying his widow's sister" ridiculous.
If something is completely impossible to do, why would it be illegal?
I'm sure there are no laws against a baby (i.e. less than 12 month old) single handedly dismantling the Empire State Building and selling it on ebay, right?
I find the question (or rather the answers) to the "man marrying his widow's sister" ridiculous.
If something is completely impossible to do, why would it be illegal?
The question wasn't whether a law had been passed making it illegal, it asked whether it was legal. Since the statute specifying who may enter into a marriage contract does not include dead people*, it would not be legal, though I suspect the state would be loathe to prosecute any corpse who attempted the feat. I also suspect the mental health authorities muight have some serious questions to ask the prospective bride** ...
*Note that this law is currently under review by the California State Supreme Court, so this situation may not be permanent.
**Further note that the laws against necrophilia may not proscribe such a marriage, but would make its consummation a crime.
Originally posted by Beetle:
I'm sure there are no laws against a baby (i.e. less than 12 month old) single handedly dismantling the Empire State Building and selling it on ebay, right?
The current laws agains vandalism, theft, fraud, etc. would seem to cover the situation adequately.
That thing about the baby and the empire state building: I don't think babies are allowed to sell stuff on EBay, but if you can get a good PICTURE of him dismantling, then you could maybe sell it. And say, wasn't that baby named Moses, and wasn't that the Egyptian state building?
