Thursday, November 3, 2011 7:47:35 PM
It's a paradox, no real solution. And no, it`s not 0% either. You run into a contradiction no matter which starting point (25% or 50%) you begin your reasoning with. in other words, the "right answer" is recursive onto itself, you need to "define the right answer to define the right answer".
Sunday, October 30, 2011 6:00:04 PM
If I chose an answer to the question in this image at random, assuming that I can only randomly choose one of the given answers A) through D), There would be no chance of my being correct; I would have a 0% chance. 0%, however, is not an option (this possibility will be addressed later), so this is an unsolvable question with the given choices. This will be shown presently:
A): Because 25% is listed as an option twice, meaning it occurs 50% of the time, randomly choosing an answer causes 25% to turn up 50% of the time. The answer here and in D) is 25%, not 50%. This answer is wrong.
B): The answer 50% only turns up once. Since there are 4 answers, it turns up 25% of the time. The answer B) is 50%, not 25%. This answer is also wrong.
C): This answer is wrong because none of the options turn up 60% of the time.
D): This answer is wrong for the same reason that A) was wrong.
Adding an answer E): 0%, would seem right, but in fact wou
Sunday, October 30, 2011 5:59:42 PM
ldn't be, truly, because it would contradict itself. If you were never right, then how could E) (0%) be a correct answer? As such, those who said that 0% is the right answer were only partially correct. While there is no correct answer as is, saying 0% is the right answer and should be there as E) would cause it to be a paradoxical answer, being wrong because it`s right (since there is no right answer, it’s correct, but by being correct it becomes the right answer, making it wrong) and right because it`s wrong (now that 0% has been determined to be wrong, it can be right again, bringing us back to the previous parenthetical phrase). Those who simply said 0%, without suggesting it be added as E), were really right, but not technically as correct as they could have been, considering how they`d simply dismissed the problem as unsolvable even with modification (which it isn’t) or simply didn`t think that far. The way I see it, the best way to alter and solve this problem w