In “Can You Solve This Math Problem That Went Viral In Japan?”(2016), Kristy Hamilton shows the viral question in japan which might cause you to make a mistake in basic math calculation. The statistics reveals that 60 percent of testers in the study can solve this equation correctly within 20 seconds (approximately). More interestingly, this percentage is lower than the rate in the 1980s, that is, 90 percent. Likewise, another questionfor testing children (Mathematics Year 2) according to “Parents Are Freaking Out Because They Can't Answer A 7-Year-Old Kid's Exam Question.” (2016) is being highly criticized. This is because even adults are getting confused and scratching their heads.
_______________________________________
My Yes/No question is:
Can you solve these math problems correctly by yourself? (Please count time for each question)
My answer is:
Yes I can for the first problem, but I cannot for the second one.
Before talking to the detailed methods and solutions of each question, I want to tell you my results and time I spent without the aid of any (scientific) calculators. For the first math question, I spent 10 seconds getting the correct answer. On the contrary, I was a bit disappointed in the tricky problem. I took time figuring it out more than the first one 18 seconds and eventually got the wrong answer. Although both of them are fundamental math questions for students in primary school or maybe secondary school, I cannot solve one of them as I expected. Why not? I have more explanation below.
Regarding the viral problem in japan, it might not cause me trouble in my calculation because I get used to math equations for long time throughout the years of my studies. Plus, this question is not relevant to any word problem in mathematics. There is just a simple equation. Nevertheless, it does not mean everyone who are students or adults can still solve it fluently and accurately. I think it depends on various factors. For instance, those who used to learn this subject in high school may barely calculate it again or just use the calculators or programs to figure out instead. They might feel pretty challenging for them. Another possible factor is systematically explained in the below video which also shows the technique for how to solve it correctly.
Inconceivably enough, the second one which is actually a 7-year-old kid’s exam problem can baffle me as well. When I calculated it, I firstly defined X as the initial number of people on the train. Then I translated the text in this math question into the equation like this: X-19+17= 63. Therefore, X in this case is equivalent to 65. That is my answer in 28 seconds. But this is incorrect and the actual answer on the mark sheet is 46. Are you confused too?
When looking at the question closely and interpreting it again, it is in fact asking us how many original passengers are left (or how many people were on the train to begin with). So, if 63 passengers who are on the train minus 17 new ones, the rest of them are original people (63-17=46). Tricky and ambiguous? Briefly, I got the wrong answer due to my misunderstanding in the language of the question, not my calculation deficiency. For mathematics, words problems often seem to more challenging and maybe more vague than merely numerical problems. This makes students and us have to read and comprehend their text carefully before writing a proper equation and calculating.
How about you? Do you get the right answer? Do you think it is too tricky?
___________
References
Hale, T. (2016, May 10). Parents Are Freaking Out Because They Can't Answer A 7-Year-Old Kid's Exam Question. IFL Science. Retrieved from http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/7-year-old-kids-homework-confusing-adults-internet
Yes, I can solve both questions. In first one, I took about 10 seconds, and second one, I took 15 seconds. I think this is not too tricky, I disagree Feem, because, in Japan, we usually have this kinds of questions on mathematics. We call these kinds of questions “the issue of reading and understanding”. Actually, I don’t like mathematics because of these. Do you like mathematics?
ReplyDeleteI thought the first one is "tricky" because it's an unusual way to write the operation, but it's also fairly straight forward.
ReplyDeleteI made the same the same mistake as Feem with the more interesting 2nd problem, the one about the train. But I also like it. The answer, once the misunderstanding is corrected, is both simple and obvious.
I thought it was a nice example not only of critical thinking (rather more than straight arithmetic), but also of the need for free speech: just imagine if it were illegal to say that the answer was actually 46 because someone in power had dictated that it was 65.
Mathematics, as we agreed when we did the survey on fact v. opinion and true v. false is special, and so an exception to the usual rule. The usual rule being that absent free speech, I think that even having a true opinion cannot be knowledge and must be largely worthless if dissenting opinions can not be stated for discussion.
It's fun, and healthy I think, to see that things we think obvious and necessarily true might in fact be completely false and our understanding seriously deluded.
I can answer the first question correctly. However, for another one, my answer is wrong. Actually, I misunderstand the second question, so I answer what I think the question might ask.
ReplyDeleteThis article remind me of my experience in taking Mathematics test in English. I did't know many mathematics vocabulary, so I could not understand the questions or the answers. As a result, my grade was quite low.
Your blog post enables me to become exciting as few people will response writing about calculation. Definitely, this day, before I went to Chamchuri Square to study in AUA, I had done your quiz and check correct answers from your response writing. Similarly with Feem, I was correct only the first question and then in the second question, I answered 65 too. In my opinion, perhaps, I'm right in the first one as I merely calculate figures without reading complex sentences. Nevertheless, in the other one, I misunderstand about the answer that question wants.
ReplyDeleteThis mistake permits me to recall some experience in my life about misunderstanding questions, especially maths and science. Furthermore, it reminds me about reply answers from teacher Peter's questions. many times I reply wrong because of misunderstanding his question and not intending to listen his questions. That's my false.
Yes, same as Feem. I don't quite understand the second question much. Why you use "were" which is the past or before the stop but exclude the person who come after the stop? Am I the only one who don't understand the question thoroughly? haha
ReplyDeleteI've changed my mind about the 2nd one. There were originally 65 people on the train.
ReplyDeleteIf the questioner meant how many of these were originally on the train, that is what they need to have written. Asking "How many people were on the train to begin with?" is not the same as asking "How many of these people were on the train to begin with?"
If my child got this wrong because they said 65, I would explain that the teacher was wrong. If the teacher insists on having everyone agree with a false belief for very dubious, in fact dishonest, reasons, I would suggest that the teacher need some instruction in basic good morals - something that students are also often better at then teachers set in bad old habits, attitudes, customs and values.
I'm glad the Feem posted the image. This is a case where we absolutely must see and quote the exact language used.
I'm sorry I changed my mind so quickly yesterday. In my defence, I've been ill for the last few days, and this definitely effects my brain, even if I'm not aware of. Thankfully, we can reassess and correct errors.
What annoys me most about this is that some of you thought you had misunderstood the English - you had not. Throughout the statement of the question, every reference to people who are on the train is exactly that: a reference to people who are on the train.
I think what might have happened here is that the question writer originally intended to ask about the people who were originally on the train, but unless you explicitly say something like that relative clause, that is not what the question as written asks. I'm still feeling a bit light-headed, but my cold has broken, I got a reasonable nights sleep last, and I've checked and rechecked.
The question could mean what the examiner thinks, but that is not the most natural reading, and one purpose of academic English is to avoid not only saying what we do not mean, but to avoid ambiguity: this is why I like us to speak in sentences more than is usual in non-academic English - anything less is very easy to misunderstand, as we see in class when people speak for a few minutes in fragments, phrases and sometimes single words.
I know some of my questions seem tricky, but my intent is not to trick, and when I make a mistake or say something that you might reasonable not understand in the way I meant, I try to fix not, not to insist that my original understanding is the only one possible.
But this seems to me not just trickiness. It might have started that way, but if the examiner does not allow that "How many people were on the train?" most naturally means "If we counted the bodies on the train when it set off, what number would we get?" The correct answer is 65.
By this point in my morning coffee, I was thinking: "Could any teacher be both so dishonest and so stupid?" (Some doubtless are, but I think a very minority.)
And what do we do when our critical thinking tells something sounds very likely, for example, that African's seriously believed that Gerber minced up babies for dinner? We check the source!
The only source I could find was a Tweet from a teacher. And for me to believe that the official answer was 46, I would want to see the evidence that that is what the answer sheet said. Absent that, this sounds like it might all be someone's amazing fantasy or misunderstanding.
Sources really are important, and readers do check them.
And after a comment that has gobbled up much more of my ten morning coffee time than usual, we must thank Feem for posting this response full of useful academic lessons not only in reading English but in critical thinking and the use of sources.
And now I'll try to catch up an everything I haven't done the last couple of days.
The only "primary" source I could find was this Tweet from a parent.
DeleteAnd her cited source is a comment on a Facebook group page.
It seems this somehow got passed around, everyone was saying it, so everyone believed everyone else believed it, but in fact no one was checking or presenting any solid evidence, and nothing becomes true, nothing is knowledge, merely because some large percentage, say 100%, of people believe it, or even more weakly are claimed to believe it in the absence of the necessary polls of public opinion. If you don't do a reliable poll of public opinion, then you don't even know what a group of people really believe about any topic, and even if they do all amazingly hold the same belief, that does not mean that the Earth is actually at the centre of the universe.
The Tweet I cited is at: https://twitter.com/LouiseBloxham/status/729239551370268672
DeleteThank you everyone who tried calculating these interesting math problems.
ReplyDeleteUnsurprisingly, that’s why we are supposed to practice thinking critically and correcting misunderstanding in the class and even outside the class all the time.