Printable View
I'd say four - one on each side.
However, I have a faint memory of a mischievous little trick the Beatles played at some point in their career, where they pressed a record with two grooves on one side of an album, sort of intermeshed, so that what you heard depended on where you happened to put down the needle.
Then again, that might have been The Residents.
I hope it was the Residents, because the answer I was looking for was four.
This one comes from a school fundraiser quiz night, many years ago.
The idea is to guess what the initials stand for, every example has a number in it.
So, 3 CITF, would be, Three coins in the fountain.
10 DS
221a BS
50 WTLYL
20000 LUTS
T 4 T
P 6-5000
15 MOF
F 451
TJ5
HMTHA 3 TS
That last one is from that Quiz night. (Someone on our team actually got it.)
Will think. Did these things in class before. Students liked it.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Tea for TwoQuote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Pennsylvania 6-5000
All I can up with for the last one is
How many toes has a three-toed sloth?
which, if it isn't right, ought to be.
I am agog!
Yes the three-toed sloth is correct.
Fair warning: If no one posts something else, I've loads of these, and am not afraid to use them!
Some more then:
1. 64 S on a CB
2. 1 P for a FT
3. 11 P on a FT
4. 90 D in a R A
5. 7 W of the W
6. 32 D F at which W F
7. 1 H on a U
8. 3 B M (SHTR)
9. 18 H on a G C
10. 88 K on a P
11. 26 L in the A
12. 12 S of the Z
13. 24 H in a D
14. 1000 W (what a P is W)
15. 54 C in a D (with the J's)
16. 1001 T of the A N
17. 29 D in F in a L Y
18. 57 H V
19. 9 P in the S S
20. For Americans only: 200 D for P G in M
21. For everyone but Americans: 14 D in a F
22. 13 S on the A F (also for Americans)
23. 40 D and N of the G F
24. 1 W on a U
Still puzzling over 2, 14 and 20.Quote:
Originally Posted by jajdude
2. 1 point for a free throw
200 dollars for passing Go in Monopoly.
A thousand words (what a picture is worth) I'll admit, my son got that one.
This is like the end of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
Can I be Clint?
Are you mean, moody and mysterious with chiselled good looks? Oh, and you'll have to change your wellies - wrong style for the rough, tough West.
I'll be the Ugly one's donkey then.
Hey, Mick! :mad: You know what you are? Just a--actually, let this be a segue:
NOTE: I have altered the puzzle, please check the next post. I'll keep the old version here as a Quote, for the benefit of anyone who had been struggling with it and wanted to check what has been changed (a couple of phrases in the fourth paragraph of the story). Sorry!
Quote:
Puppies and Kittens and The Overcrowded Academy
There was a very busy animal shelter that had many puppies and kittens. At night, when the staff was gone, some of the older dogs and cats were in the habit of teaching special classes to the younger animals. They created a school called The Night-Time Animal Academy. There were courses in Human Behavior, Door Opening, Traffic, Cat-Dog Relations, etc. There was, in fact, a very determined effort to focus on a common agenda, and common topics, and to have kittens and puppies studying side-by-side in the same classes. It was an enlightened vision of a future in which cats and dogs would be treated equally.
However, there were too many puppies and kittens, and not enough wise old teachers among the pets in the shelter. Unfortunately, the classes were all full, and the puppies and kittens had to submit applications and take entrance exams.
At the start of one session, one rather proud little puppy that had not been accepted into the The Night-Time Animal Academy noticed something: kittens were being admitted to classes in the school much more often than the puppies were. There was quite a controversy, and kittens and puppies felt a little tense towards each other in the classes, not to mention outside of class. Were the cat teachers showing a preference towards kittens?
There was an investigation, and it turned out (rather surprisingly) that in each class, puppies were actually being admitted a little more frequently than kittens, although the discrepancy was slight and attributable to random variation. It didn't matter if the teacher was a cat or a dog, the puppies were never turned away any more frequently than the kittens applying for the class. The teachers were relieved at the news, but also realized that something still had to be done to get more puppies into classes.
What was the real explanation behind the controversy? What sort of solution would the teachers most likely come up with?
Sorry, I should have worded that little puzzle a little differently...
Here's a corrected version (I was using the word 'frequently' in a misleading way):
Puppies and Kittens and The Overcrowded Academy
There was a very busy animal shelter that had many puppies and kittens. At night, when the staff was gone, some of the older dogs and cats were in the habit of teaching special classes to the younger animals. They created a school called The Night-Time Animal Academy. There were courses in Human Behavior, Door Opening, Traffic, Cat-Dog Relations, etc. There was, in fact, a very determined effort to focus on a common agenda, and common topics, and to have kittens and puppies studying side-by-side in the same classes. It was an enlightened vision of a future in which cats and dogs would be treated equally.
However, there were too many puppies and kittens, and not enough wise old teachers among the pets in the shelter. Unfortunately, the classes were all full, and the puppies and kittens had to submit applications and take entrance exams.
At the start of one session, one rather proud little puppy that had not been accepted into the The Night-Time Animal Academy noticed something: kittens were being admitted to classes in the school much more often than the puppies were. There was quite a controversy, and kittens and puppies felt a little tense towards each other in the classes, not to mention outside of class. Were the cat teachers showing a preference towards kittens?
There was an investigation, and it turned out (rather surprisingly) that in each class, the puppies were actually more likely to be admitted than the kittens were, although the discrepancy was slight and attributable to random variation. It didn't matter if the teacher was a cat or a dog, puppies were never more likely to be turned away than kittens applying for the class. The teachers were relieved at the news, but also realized that something still had to be done to get more puppies into classes.
What was the real explanation behind the controversy? What sort of solution would the teachers most likely come up with?
Well done above posters. Did not know the answers myself, just copied the Qs from somewhere.
Billl. It seems a direct contradiction to me, but there is a slight difference in the words chosen. "Puppies were more likely to be admitted." "Kittens were being admitted."
Perhaps the Puppies had a high drop out rate.
Perhaps, I'm barking up the wrong tree.
This one is admittedly sort of a stumper, and I gradually realized that one's way of describing the situation might inadvertently mask the subtle, underlying nuance. (I have based the puzzle on an actual problem that happened in an actual college.) And, yes, stick with that particular tree...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify (sort of a hint, but just as much a leg-up to the English language), let me mention the following...
Total enrollment in the Academy:
70% kittens, 30% puppies
Enrollment in particular classes:
"Human Behavior": 35% kittens that applied were accepted, 41% puppies were accepted
"Traffic": 40% kittens that applied were accepted, 45% of puppies that applied were accepted
etc.
Another class not mentioned in the original presentation(s):
"Tail-Smelling: Etiquette and Appreciation"
maybe cats are more popular than dogs, so cats were finding homes more often and having to drop of out of class. or maybe there is less dogs in the shelter and so they are more likely to be admitted when they apply but there were less applications.
Actually, no animals are dropping out of classes. The number of puppies vs. kittens in the shelter isn't a factor, and they are all trying to get into classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallon
And, for simplicity's sake (although it doesn't really matter, I guess), let's say that each animal is applying to just one class.
OK, to sum up (I can't tell if people are having a tough time, or just haven't been online, or if my description sucks--so just in case):
- Significantly more kittens are being accepted into classes at the Academy. (Controversy!!!)
- For each class, the dogs that apply for the class are AT LEAST AS LIKELY to be accepted as a kitten applying for the class.
What was the real explanation behind the controversy?
What sort of solution would the teachers most likely come up with?
'Positive' discrimination?
I don't think so, kasie, but I'm not sure exactly what that might mean. It is certainly the case that the teachers judging the applications are not discriminating, one way or the other, for or against any of the submitted applications.
Like Tallon said, the intake reflected the pool it was drawn from. There are more kittens than pups making applications.
OK, one more thing: There are an equal number of kittens and puppies applying, and an equal number of applications from each of them (kittens and puppies).
Ex.
(Note: I'll let this example override the example statistics I gave earlier--not because the previous example in which puppies were accepted more often wouldn't work just as well, but because the math would be more difficult, and I've just crafted a solution based on the simpler example featured here.)Quote:
100 kittens (each applying once), 100 puppies (each applying once)
58 kittens accepted to classes at the academy this session.
42 puppies accepted to classes at the academy this session.
5 classes, 20 students each.
for each class, puppies and kittens were rejected at the same rate.
I hope this makes it easier to think about the problem--sorry I didn't mention that the number of applicants from each group (kittens and puppies) could be equivalent.
I am just going to say that Tallon didn't have it right. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
No snark here, either... Just a last bit of caginess.
Please note, at 6:37 I made a FINAL ALTERATION to the above quote, which is now accurate and (I hope) clear!
How are the applications made? By post? In person? I mean, if the assessors are human and allergies to dogs are more prevalent than allergies to cats, that might do it. Or, however inclusive the authoritative creatures involved, it could be that the proportional entry of kittens and puppies reflects the relative numbers of cats and dogs on the panel.
Mark, the teachers doing the deciding are elders among the cats and dogs in the shelter. An even mix, let's say. There could still be some inadvertent bias in some form, of course--but they make no distinction among candidates and judge fairly among the applicants to the classes that they are teaching. In each class, the kitten has as good of a chance as the puppy applying in the next application folder--and the rejection and acceptance rates reflect this.
EDIT: I now realize that, with 5 classes, there can't be an "even mix" of cat and dog teachers admitting students into their classes. (EDIT: actually there COULD be, if each class had an even number of assessors, as Mark was probably imagining--whereas I had imagined a sole instructor doing that duty.) This is not a relevant point in the 'puzzle', however, and could be corrected by doubling the number of classes and teachers and students (which I should have done, in retrospect, sorry for the improvised and ramshackle nature of this thing.)
The applications are judged without unfairness and without favorability towards kitten or puppy, in the case of any particular class.
Given that this is based on a real issue that came up at your college, would the problem work just as well if you'd chosen, say, elephants and giraffes? In other words, we're not looking for something cute about dogs and cats, right?
Right, this puzzle is based on an interesting aspect of statistical evaluation. Nothing about cuteness, or animals being particularly quirky. (The 'real world' issue involved human males and females, apparently.)
Btw, it didn't happen at the school I went to, I just read about it this past week, happening on some other U.S. university at some point.
Right - so we have very few elements to consider.
1. some inherent attribute that differs between the two groups of students
2. some inherent aspect of the process of enrolment that favours one of the groups of students (possibly but not necessarily because of 1)
3. some flaw in the lens of the data analysis that skews the perception of what's going on in 1 and 2.
In fact, as you hinted strongly in your last post, it has to be the last one, doesn't it because...
100 kittens (each applying once), 100 puppies (each applying once).....
for each class, puppies and kittens were rejected at the same rate.
but, if the rejection rate was the same then how can it betrue that
58 kittens accepted to classes at the academy this session.
42 puppies accepted to classes at the academy this session.
I shall think about this on the train to work.... Were the applicant kittens lying about their species? Or - here's a longshot - does the input form for the stats default to 'kitten' and when the inputters come up against a name of ambiguous species, do they leave it as the default?
Number 2, more than anything.
With number 3 being a repetition of 2 perhaps, or maybe the "What will they do about it?" part of the question... Actually, Number 3 is maybe just US STRUGGLING with the problem.
Or, shoot--you could blame it all on number 1, maybe.
clarifying presentation:
Imagine you are of group A (man, dog, etc.) and there is another group B (woman, cat, etc.) that is also applying to study at some university that is offering some selection of classes. The university has an equal number of applicants from A and B (and, for argument's sake, each student applies just once, choosing only one class). All of that is equal. ALSO, if you (an 'A') are in line to submit your application to a professor, you can be absolutely assured that your chances of acceptance into the class are exactly the same as the A in front of you and the B behind you--everyone has an equal chance.
The puzzle is: Why is the university accepting significantly more members of one group?
(58% of those accepted are of type 'B', for example)
How does the acceptance process work? First-come-first-served?
Ah - kittens get up earlier in the morning! Or dogs, or whichever it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
In other words, they are rejected at the same rate, as bill says, but they apply at different rates.
There's a deadline, all applications are considered, and the best ones are chosen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
EDIT/ADDITION: That is, when it is stated that "100 kittens and 100 puppies apply", those applications are all considered for acceptance, none of them are "too late"--it isn't first-come, first-served.
************************************************** ***************
EDIT ADDITION:
To recap, and focus on the essentials: all of the info in this example (from post #427) is relevant, and sufficient to demonstrate the answer:
- 100 kittens (each applying once), 100 puppies (each applying once)
- 58 kittens accepted to classes at the academy this session.
- 42 puppies accepted to classes at the academy this session.
- 5 classes, 20 students each.
- for each class, puppies and kittens were rejected at the same rate.
Ah...for each class, puppies and kittens were rejected at the same rate.
Subject bias.
If the boys as a group tend to apply to a narrower selection of classes, fewer of them will get in. Whereas the girls might apply more broadly across the classes, so more of them get in.
Let's say eighty boys and twenty girls apply for engineering - and they are rejected at the proportionate rate of four in five, because there are twenty places. So sixteen boys and four girls get in.
The remaining four classes each have five boys and twenty girls apply, rejected at a rate of one in five - so four boys and sixteen girls get into each class.
In total, there are thirty-two boys and sixty-eight girls enrolled in the year.
YES!
If anyone wants to solve for 58-42 percent, maybe that can be a nice little puzzle until the next one is presented.
EDIT: By the way, if anyone is interested in the real world inspiration for this example, I'm afraid I can't point directly to it--I've been searching, but to no avail. HOWEVER, I heard about it in a little essay among many other essays by mostly interesting thinkers at the edge.org website. Unfortunately, the essayist (Seth Lloyd) only mentions the name of the researcher he heard about it from (Joel Cohen), and that wasn't enough for me to track it down out of all the papers published by the researcher online, and the undoubtedly many more that haven't been. But Seth Lloyd is a perfectly respectable computer scientist, famous even.