I THINK THE ANSWER LIES IN WHAT IS NOT SAID HERE RATHER THAN WHAT IS SAID.
THE NATURAL ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IS OLD. THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE - HE COULD HAVE WON IT AT AGE 25 AND BE ONLY 35 YEARS OLD.
THE KID COULD GROW UP TO DISCOVER A CURE FOR CANCER.
THE CEO COULD BE A SCIENTIST AS WELL AS A CEO OF A COMPANY WHICH MAKES A CURE FOR ANTHRAX.
YOU CANNOT QUESTION THE KID, BUT MAYBE ONE OF THE OTHER TWO IS A PARENT OF THE KID- OR BOTH MAY BE AS THERE IS NO DETERMINATION IF THEY ARE MALE OR FEMALE.
THERE ARE TOO MANY IMPONDERABLES TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE INFORMATION TO HAND.
IT IS LIKE A L/C WHICH HAS BEEN BADLY OPENED AND IS OPEN TO INTERPREATION OR WHICH MAY HAVE NON DOCUMETARY CONDITIONS.
A Test For You
A Test For You
Dear Mr. Alistairo,
We would like to respond to your comments as follows:
(1) If we try to post our simple test as if it were an L/C, it may then be one and a half page long. And you know this is not a practical thing to do in the Discussion Forum narrow frames.
(2) As we have said, please make <reasonable> assumptions to shape your answers. Treating the three persons as three generations is "lateral thinking" rather than <reasonable> assumptions.
(3) For KISS reasons, may we confirm that the four persons are all males and have no blood connection whatsoever.
(4) Although your comments do not sound what we like or expect to receive, yet we wish to thank you for taking your valuable time to respond. That is what we want. Of course, if you could provide an answer based on <reasonable> assumption, and don't treat it as <non-documentary conditions>, we would be most grateful.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 11/28/01 5:47:54 PM]
We would like to respond to your comments as follows:
(1) If we try to post our simple test as if it were an L/C, it may then be one and a half page long. And you know this is not a practical thing to do in the Discussion Forum narrow frames.
(2) As we have said, please make <reasonable> assumptions to shape your answers. Treating the three persons as three generations is "lateral thinking" rather than <reasonable> assumptions.
(3) For KISS reasons, may we confirm that the four persons are all males and have no blood connection whatsoever.
(4) Although your comments do not sound what we like or expect to receive, yet we wish to thank you for taking your valuable time to respond. That is what we want. Of course, if you could provide an answer based on <reasonable> assumption, and don't treat it as <non-documentary conditions>, we would be most grateful.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 11/28/01 5:47:54 PM]
A Test For You
T.O. - GIVEN WHAT YOU SAY, AND WITH NO OTHER INFORMATION , I WOULD SAVE THE BABY AS IT WOULD BE THE LIGHTEST AND EASIEST TO TRANSPORT TO THE TREATMENT CENTRE.
ALISTAIR
ALISTAIR
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
A Test For You
Given the limited time I have in this critical situation and since my decision will literally end in depriving two persons from life versus one who will be given the opportunity to survive, I would call for a consensus of the three of us as to who should live and who should not. The noble prize winner and the CEO should take part in the decision leaving technical things for the first and the administration of the dose to the second. If we did not come to a consensus, each one will be asked what would he do if he were in my shoes. Based on their answers, I will decide who deserve to live; however I will take the position of the child since he cannot speak for himself.
In this way, I will live my life happily, without being engrossed with the idea of making a fatal decision.
In this way, I will live my life happily, without being engrossed with the idea of making a fatal decision.
A Test For You
Dear Hatem,
What about if all the three persons, including your goodself as an <agent of the baby>, say: " Let it be Me!"
Lucky draw appears to be a better and more decisive approach as the losing one can only blame himself.
However, this is not what the test is originally intended - to help you classify yourself according to your answers as whether your should belong to the Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw or Slytherin? If you don't know what we are talking about, you may ask your kids or go to see the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 11/30/01 3:57:19 PM]
What about if all the three persons, including your goodself as an <agent of the baby>, say: " Let it be Me!"
Lucky draw appears to be a better and more decisive approach as the losing one can only blame himself.
However, this is not what the test is originally intended - to help you classify yourself according to your answers as whether your should belong to the Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw or Slytherin? If you don't know what we are talking about, you may ask your kids or go to see the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 11/30/01 3:57:19 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
A Test For You
Some of the debate here seems to revolve over life expectancy of the three persons. One might say that the life expectancy of the child is the greatest, but infant mortality tends to be higher than adult. The CEO would seem to be in the prime of his life, but pressure and stress in such a position may contribute to a shorter than expected life expectancy. The retired gent may be said to have the lowest life expectancy because of his age, but he is unlikely to encounter stressful situations and may outlive the other two. Therefore the fairest way of deciding might be simply to draw lots, with the unaffected person drawing for the child.
Another scenario which might be apt would be to consider the consequences of the death of each person. The retired person and the child would have an affect on their immediate families only, but the death of the CEO may affect the viability of his company, resulting in the loss of some or all jobs at that company.
This argument may be flawed, however, as the old gent may go on to inspire or mentor another and no one can tell at an early age what the child may contribute in the future.
Another scenario which might be apt would be to consider the consequences of the death of each person. The retired person and the child would have an affect on their immediate families only, but the death of the CEO may affect the viability of his company, resulting in the loss of some or all jobs at that company.
This argument may be flawed, however, as the old gent may go on to inspire or mentor another and no one can tell at an early age what the child may contribute in the future.
A Test For You
So far everyone is trying to test the "market" (e.g.the official answer from the experts) by presenting some solutions on <with recourse> basis - that means they are not committed to their views. They do not deem these as their final answers but rather package them as "analysis" so that they may change them if necessary.
Such reactions are also one of the expected outcomes of this test. Having said that, shall we leave this round and go to round two - to provide us with an <irrevocable> and courageous answer rather than analysis?
We should follow the practice of ICC Banking Commission Officers in responding to queries. They give "Analysis and Conclusion" together.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/3/01 5:06:08 PM]
Such reactions are also one of the expected outcomes of this test. Having said that, shall we leave this round and go to round two - to provide us with an <irrevocable> and courageous answer rather than analysis?
We should follow the practice of ICC Banking Commission Officers in responding to queries. They give "Analysis and Conclusion" together.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/3/01 5:06:08 PM]