Cannot be determined - there is nothing in the question to indicate whether any of the three are people.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
IQ Test - Take 2
Collapse
X
-
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
-
it doesnt state if anne is married, it doesnt state whether anne, jack or andyw are people, in theory you could also argue that the question is irrelevant to the previous statement i.e is a married person looking at an unmarried person? yes, somewhere in the world they are, it doesn't state whether the question relates to the previous statement.. too ambigious .. failThe proud owner of 125 Xeno Geek PointsComment
-
Originally posted by chef View Postit doesnt state if anne is married, it doesnt state whether anne, jack or andyw are people, in theory you could also argue that the question is irrelevant to the previous statement i.e is a married person looking at an unmarried person? yes, somewhere in the world they are, it doesn't state whether the question relates to the previous statement.. too ambigious .. fail
I have been tricked and don't like it one bit.
Comment
-
Erm, I assumed they were people. And Anne's state is either unmarried or married. With these assumptions the answer has to be yes. Now that I've thought about it.
However, I did check the 'cannot be determined' option at first. So, FAIL, followed by 'doh', followed by a moment of clarity.
The answer is definitely 'yes'.
Edit: Thinking about this some more though, the way in which the question is worded lends itself to a 'cannot be determined' answer. You have to apply assumptions to reach a 'yes'.Last edited by realityhack; 6 November 2009, 10:34.Comment
-
Ditto.Originally posted by realityhack View PostErm, I assumed they were people. And Anne's state is either unmarried or married. With these assumptions the answer has to be yes. Now that I've thought about it.
However, I did check the 'cannot be determined' option at first. So, FAIL, followed by 'doh', followed by a moment of clarity.
The answer is definitely 'yes'.Comment
-
Not true. The answer could be No.
depending on which way they are facing
(\__/)
(>'.'<)
("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to WorkComment
-
It could be 'no' and 'yes' simultaneously.Originally posted by EternalOptimist View PostNot true. The answer could be No.
depending on which way they are facing

Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- How to run a contractor limited company — efficiently. Part one: software Yesterday 23:31
- Forget February as an MSC contractor seeking clarity, and maybe forget fairness altogether Yesterday 19:57
- What contractors should take from Honest Payroll Ltd’s failure Jan 21 07:05
- HMRC tax avoidance list ‘proves promoters’ nothing-to-lose mentality’ Jan 20 09:17
- Digital ID won’t be required for Right To Work, but more compulsion looms Jan 19 07:41
- A remote IT contractor's allowable expenses: 10 must-claims in 2026 Jan 16 07:03
- New UK crypto rules now apply. Here’s how mandatory reporting affects contractors Jan 15 07:03
- What the Ray McCann Loan Charge Review means for contractors Jan 14 06:21
- IT contractor demand defied seasonal slump in December 2025 Jan 13 07:10
- Five tax return hacks for contractors as Jan 31st looms Jan 12 07:45

Comment