• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    241 year ago

    I remember this being on an elementary school IQ test: Why do people in China eat more rice than people in America?

    The answer was “Because there are more people in China.”

    You miss 100% of the shots online scams you don’t take get exposed to when it takes you 5 minutes to type in a url.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      281 year ago

      Thats a pretty terrible question though since there are two equally valid ways of viewing the question the way it is worded. It’s not talking aboit China, it’s talking about people in China. People in South Korea eat more rice than people in Colombia despite both countries have similar populations. “Why does China consume more rice than America” is the actual question to ask yo try and get that answers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      Huh?

      The question isn’t “why is MORE TOTAL rice eaten in China than America?”

      There simply being more people in China doesn’t mean Chinese people choose to individually eat more rice. There are other reasons for that per person choice.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Both are totally legitimate interpretations. It doesn’t specify what they’re talking about beyond “people in China” which can either mean individually or collectively. It’s meant to be a trick question, though, which is why it’s worded so ambiguously.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “people in China” does not mean the same thing as " the Chinese populace".

          People in China means consider the individual experience of a person, then generalize.

          It does not mean “as a cumulative total”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 year ago

              Cool, but that’s not how semantic coding works. I know it’s popular to say “language evolves” but logical Grammer means something still.