HELP YOU KNOW YOUR REAL SELF - A TEST
Bankers take different approaches in determination of discrepancies and often argue strongly over the SWIFT. Now is a good chance to know whehter your approach is right or wrong, or better still, reasonable or unreasonable, or something else that you would like to be measured.
We would like to give you a test so that from your response you know your real self better. Please provide your straight and honest answer. Otherwise you may also deceive yourself. And the purpose of this game cannot be achieved.
You meet three persons, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry who has retired for ten years, a cute baby of one year old, and a CEO of 35, with a MBA from Harvard. They are all at the last stage of Anthrax infection and will die if not being treated within two hours. You are all 2 hours from the nearest Anthrax treatment centre.
However, you have an Anthrax injection dose only good for one person to extend his life for two hours.
To whom should you give the injection?
For those who know the answer, please keep silent until we provide the analysis from the experts. Many thanks.
So far we receive not a single respond. Why you are so scared? Come on. This is only a game!
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 11/26/01 4:01:19 PM]
A Test For You
-
KarenHan_disabled
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:20 pm
A Test For You
Good to have a game in the Forum.
I will pick the 35 years old young man as I assume he is still alive when I arrive the treatment center.
I will pick the 35 years old young man as I assume he is still alive when I arrive the treatment center.
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
A Test For You
My solution is this :
If one dose is good for one person for 2 hours, presumably 1/3 dose is good for 40 minutes. Therefore I would give each of the three 1/3 dose which extend the deadline by 40 minutes to 2 hours forty minutes. Since it takes 2 hours to reach the treatment centre, all three should receive treatment in time.
Another variation on this would be to contact the treatment centre and meet half-way. Thus treatment would begin after 1 hour instead of 2, but would still need the 1/3 dose mentioned above.
Laurence
If one dose is good for one person for 2 hours, presumably 1/3 dose is good for 40 minutes. Therefore I would give each of the three 1/3 dose which extend the deadline by 40 minutes to 2 hours forty minutes. Since it takes 2 hours to reach the treatment centre, all three should receive treatment in time.
Another variation on this would be to contact the treatment centre and meet half-way. Thus treatment would begin after 1 hour instead of 2, but would still need the 1/3 dose mentioned above.
Laurence
-
PGauntlett
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
A Test For You
After carefully considering the plight of the three sufferers I'd take it myself!
A Test For You
COMMUNICATIONS CANNOT BE PERFECT
The responses received so far demonstrate clearly that communications of all kinds (whether verbal, written or by conduct) are not perfect and cannot be perfect because different people have different perceptions and interpretations to the same message due to different educations, trainings, cultures, preferences, ways of thinking, customs and practices.
We take it for granted that everybody would have the same interpretion to our story (which is now proved not necessarily the case). To improve mutual understanding, shall we use DC jargons (our common language) to clarify some facts here:
CLARIFICATION ON SOME MATERIAL FACTS HERE
(1) The dosage is <irrevocable>, <indivisible>, <non-transferable> and <non-assignable>, expiring <within a reasonable time of 7 calendar days>.
(2) "I" (the one who carries the dose) is not infected by Anthrax. Thanks to Phillip for his honest and curageous confession.
(3) The Anthrax Tratment Centre is run by government. Then you know that they should <appear to be> bureaucratic, inflexible, practising <strict compliance> to rigid rules and regulations. So asking them to meet midway is only a dream not reality. We appreciate the creative mind of Laurence. He is a good candidate for practising "lateral thinking" pioneerred by Edward de Bono, the English master of problem solving.
(4) All four people are already gathered together in the same place and they are all two hours from the Anthrax Treatment Centre. Ahming, we are sorry for not making this fact clear in the first place.
(5) As in all exercises and case studies, you may make <reasonable> assumptions.
(6) When you give your answer, please don't forget to give us your reasons also. Otherwise you may hit the right answer but with the wrong reason, like certain adjudicators do.
(7) If you agree with the solution proposed by any member, you don't have to post "I agree" message here to avoid duplications. If you have a different point, then you are welcome to voice it out for all of us to share.
Enjoy!
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 11/26/01 5:02:05 PM]
The responses received so far demonstrate clearly that communications of all kinds (whether verbal, written or by conduct) are not perfect and cannot be perfect because different people have different perceptions and interpretations to the same message due to different educations, trainings, cultures, preferences, ways of thinking, customs and practices.
We take it for granted that everybody would have the same interpretion to our story (which is now proved not necessarily the case). To improve mutual understanding, shall we use DC jargons (our common language) to clarify some facts here:
CLARIFICATION ON SOME MATERIAL FACTS HERE
(1) The dosage is <irrevocable>, <indivisible>, <non-transferable> and <non-assignable>, expiring <within a reasonable time of 7 calendar days>.
(2) "I" (the one who carries the dose) is not infected by Anthrax. Thanks to Phillip for his honest and curageous confession.
(3) The Anthrax Tratment Centre is run by government. Then you know that they should <appear to be> bureaucratic, inflexible, practising <strict compliance> to rigid rules and regulations. So asking them to meet midway is only a dream not reality. We appreciate the creative mind of Laurence. He is a good candidate for practising "lateral thinking" pioneerred by Edward de Bono, the English master of problem solving.
(4) All four people are already gathered together in the same place and they are all two hours from the Anthrax Treatment Centre. Ahming, we are sorry for not making this fact clear in the first place.
(5) As in all exercises and case studies, you may make <reasonable> assumptions.
(6) When you give your answer, please don't forget to give us your reasons also. Otherwise you may hit the right answer but with the wrong reason, like certain adjudicators do.
(7) If you agree with the solution proposed by any member, you don't have to post "I agree" message here to avoid duplications. If you have a different point, then you are welcome to voice it out for all of us to share.
Enjoy!
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 11/26/01 5:02:05 PM]
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
A Test For You
I will go for the Chemist. Saving him might help in finding a vaccine to the disease thus saving many other people.
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
A Test For You
I could make a comment that T.O's clarification amounted to an amendment which required the consent of the beneficiaries, but after all, this is good fun and we should be thankful to T.O. for his contribution.
My next solution is similar to Abdulkader Bazara, but I would give the dose to the chemist in the hope that he could replicate doses for the remaining people. Such a decision is, of course, predicated on information not yet available to us such as are all three people conscious, lucid and capable of rational decisions; are the materials to replicate other doses readily available.
As T.O. guessed, I am fond of lateral thinking. Another possible solution, if there is a match between blood types and suitable equipment available, is to arrange a continuous blood transfusion between all three, having given one the single dose.
Laurence
My next solution is similar to Abdulkader Bazara, but I would give the dose to the chemist in the hope that he could replicate doses for the remaining people. Such a decision is, of course, predicated on information not yet available to us such as are all three people conscious, lucid and capable of rational decisions; are the materials to replicate other doses readily available.
As T.O. guessed, I am fond of lateral thinking. Another possible solution, if there is a match between blood types and suitable equipment available, is to arrange a continuous blood transfusion between all three, having given one the single dose.
Laurence
A Test For You
Laurence,
LATERAL THINKING EXERCISE
If our clarifications are deemed to be amendments, then they should be falling into the category of "automatic amendments" as described in the ISP 98 because such clarification is benefitial to the beneficiaries, giving them tips to provide the right answer needed by the examiner, the issuing bank/applicant.
Automatic amendments are effective upon issue and there is no need for obtaining the consent from the beneficiaries.
http://www.tolee.com
LATERAL THINKING EXERCISE
If our clarifications are deemed to be amendments, then they should be falling into the category of "automatic amendments" as described in the ISP 98 because such clarification is benefitial to the beneficiaries, giving them tips to provide the right answer needed by the examiner, the issuing bank/applicant.
Automatic amendments are effective upon issue and there is no need for obtaining the consent from the beneficiaries.
http://www.tolee.com
A Test For You
Analysis of the query reveals.
1. the patients have two hours to live without the injection.
2. the injection is going to prolong the beneficiary's life span for another two hours.
I would therefore delay administring the injection till we reach the treatment centre, this will give us an additional two hours to try & come up with a permanent cure.
Now to the painful choice of who should be the beneficiary. I am sure each one of us would like to save all three, but given the cruel choice, I would like to go for the kid for the following reasons.(this my sound cold blooded).
the noble prize winner having retired ten years ago,may have already outlived his utility. The harvard graduate,although in the prime of his life, has most probably reached the top of his career. again there are a lot of harvard graduates around who are equally successful and his departure may not cause such a big void.
but the kid, he his only one & has got his entire life in front of him. if saved you never know what he may turn out to be. he may turn out to be a rotten egg, and again he turn out to be another Einstein.
Khalid
1. the patients have two hours to live without the injection.
2. the injection is going to prolong the beneficiary's life span for another two hours.
I would therefore delay administring the injection till we reach the treatment centre, this will give us an additional two hours to try & come up with a permanent cure.
Now to the painful choice of who should be the beneficiary. I am sure each one of us would like to save all three, but given the cruel choice, I would like to go for the kid for the following reasons.(this my sound cold blooded).
the noble prize winner having retired ten years ago,may have already outlived his utility. The harvard graduate,although in the prime of his life, has most probably reached the top of his career. again there are a lot of harvard graduates around who are equally successful and his departure may not cause such a big void.
but the kid, he his only one & has got his entire life in front of him. if saved you never know what he may turn out to be. he may turn out to be a rotten egg, and again he turn out to be another Einstein.
Khalid
A Test For You
For Khalid & Members,
If the three persons do not get the injection <within reasonable time not to exceed 2 hours>, they will all die of Anthrax. They are all 2 hours away from the Anthrax Treatment Centre. So if they are not given the injection <without delay> prior to their departure, we are afraid that by the time they arrive at the Anthrax Treatment Centre, they die instantly, even if there is no traffic jams on the way.
So the injection must be applied before starting the journey to keep the luck one alive upon arrival at the the Centre.
We hope we have made this tricky point now very clear.
Khalid's proposal to apply the injection after the 2 hour journey is a very risky one. What about if they arrive 5 minutes late?
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 11/27/01 10:05:51 PM]
If the three persons do not get the injection <within reasonable time not to exceed 2 hours>, they will all die of Anthrax. They are all 2 hours away from the Anthrax Treatment Centre. So if they are not given the injection <without delay> prior to their departure, we are afraid that by the time they arrive at the Anthrax Treatment Centre, they die instantly, even if there is no traffic jams on the way.
So the injection must be applied before starting the journey to keep the luck one alive upon arrival at the the Centre.
We hope we have made this tricky point now very clear.
Khalid's proposal to apply the injection after the 2 hour journey is a very risky one. What about if they arrive 5 minutes late?
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 11/27/01 10:05:51 PM]