How Many Animals Were Going To The River
Why No One Tin can Tell How Many Animals Are Going to the River
This Cyberspace puzzle shows that more than good grammar is needed to keep your writing clear
A friend recently posted this to her Facebook feed:
Ane rabbit saw nine elephants while going to the river. Every elephant saw iii monkeys going to the river. Each monkey had one tortoise in each paw. How many animals are going to the river?
Of course, most people got it wrong (full disclosure: I did likewise). In fact, unless she has deleted the correct answers, she is still waiting for one a few days later. Why is this so hard to get correct? It's because correct (and even simple) grammer is no guarantee your writing is easy to empathise, and learning to spot this effect is fundamental to ensuring that your writing is clear.
My friend's riddle is adequately similar to the 18th century English language riddle
As I was going to St. Ives, I met a human being with seven wives. Each married woman had 7 sacks, each sack had seven cats, each cat had seven kits: kits, cats, sacks, and wives, how many were at that place going to St. Ives?
to which the traditional answer is one: the narrator (at to the lowest degree it is according to Die Hard with a Vengeance). Looking at the first sentence of our river riddle, we see that it might exist pulling the same play tricks on us. At offset glance, it seems clear that the elephants were going to the river.
I rabbit saw 9 elephants while they were going to the river.
Only it could also be read as follows:
1 rabbit saw nine elephants while it was going to the river.
That is, this judgement might be grammatically correct, but tin can be read two means. However, ambiguity is not its only problem. By placing "while going to the river" next to "nine elephants," the riddle intentionally deceives us into thinking it was the elephants that were going, non the rabbit. To fix this, all we need to practise is movement the phrase upward side by side to "1 rabbit."
While going to the river, ane rabbit saw nine elephants.
This solves office of the ambivalence, but not all of it, considering nosotros haven't withal gotten to the monkeys.
Every elephant saw three monkeys going to the river.
How many monkeys was that again? Did each of the 9 elephant see iii different monkeys (monkey full = ix × 3 = 27) or did every elephant see the same three monkeys (monkey total = 3)?
In fact, there are 25 potential answers to this question (monkey total ∈ [iii, 27]) because some elephants might have seen the same monkey, whereas other elephants might have seen singled-out monkeys. It all depends on the field of view of each elephant (which could be blocked by vegetation, other monkeys, or indeed rabbits), and our riddle provides us with no information on this score.
It might seem like I'm nitpicking here, only equally a science editor, I see this problem frequently. In an experiment designed to evaluate the usability of a new technology, was each participant presented with a different situation that met the experimental conditions, or were all participants presented with the exact aforementioned scenario? In a telecommunications system, does each user node connect with the same three base of operations stations, or does it connect with three base station that might be the same or might exist different? Such distinctions can seriously bear upon the scientific value of a report, and it is important to be clear.
In fact, mathematicians and logicians take gone to considerable effort to develop systems that remove the ambiguities that language does not accost. However, in reality, English is still used to describe this type of information. Fifty-fifty when the logical expressions are given, English language is used to draw them. Hence, such ambivalence must exist removed using English.
For the sake of argument, permit's say in that location were 3 monkeys. To express this, nosotros tin can say
Iii monkeys were going to the river , and every elephant saw them.
In contrast, if there were 27 monkeys, we can say
Twenty-seven monkeys were going to the river , and every elephant saw iii of them.
Now, we consider the tortoises.
Each monkey had one tortoise in each hand.
Really, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with this sentence. I only forgot that monkeys have two hands. Perhaps some of you did too. To ease the brunt on forgetful readers like me, it's okay to add together a reminder.
Each monkey had two tortoises, one in each hand.
The overall riddle, after we accept completely modified (i.due east., ruined) information technology, reads as follows.
While going to the river, one rabbit saw ix elephants. Three monkeys were also going to the river, and every elephant saw them. Each monkey had ii tortoises, 1 in each hand.
We then take a total of ane rabbit + 3 monkeys + 2 × 3 tortoises = 10 animals going to the river.
The new version isn't substantially different in style and is slightly higher in word count. It includes no rhetorical elements and is not in the least bit witty. Merely at present, there is no potential for misinterpretation. Sometimes, specially in scientific or technical writing, this is all we want.
Sometimes, of course, information technology isn't. Our Internet riddle relies on ambiguity, misdirection, and unstated context to entertain the states. Writers like Oscar Wilde, P.G. Wodehouse, and Mal Peet are primary misinterpretation manipulators. Ambiguity is a widely used tool in fiction, and its many uses are exterior the scope of this article.
All the same, there is a trend, especially among writers who write near writing, toward an ultra-thin prose, i.e., the grammatical construction with the least number of words that could be interpreted every bit the author intended. Such writers remove pocket-size phrases like "they were," "that was," or "who is," and the brunt of interpretation is then placed on the reader. Those readers who are confused, tired, or struggle with English as a 2nd language are heartlessly left backside. At the extreme finish of this tendency, nosotros get grammatically correct merely seemingly nonsensical sentences similar
The one-time man the boat.
In my professional person opinion, this is not a practiced trend. If your goal is to communicate, precision in meaning trumps conciseness in syntax every fourth dimension. Learning to spot the potential for misinterpretation is i primal to effective writing, and it volition make your communication stronger equally a result.
Source: https://writingcooperative.com/why-no-one-can-tell-how-many-animals-are-going-to-the-river-2a7171418e8e
Posted by: crismanlair1941.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How Many Animals Were Going To The River"
Post a Comment