[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The true answer to this is a system of solutions because there is ambiguity introduced with the terms "5 machines" it does not explicitly state that these are "identical" machines with the same production rate so there is techinically an infinite number of solutions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets disambiguate:
uniform machines- problem makes sense, has one clear answer
the 100 machines are different types of machines- makes the correct answer: it is impossible to know from this information
The implication is that the machines are identical or at least average out to the some production rate. Technically the words on the paper don't mean this, but it is implied by the context and the fact that the 5 machines would be irrelevant if they did not relate in some important way to the 100 machines.
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/Gloss...Implicatur.htm
[/ QUOTE ]
100% Agreed...I was just nit-ing the words because question (2) is technically more ambiguous than questions (1) and (3). It is a matter of function...I could argue any number of answers are the solution to question (2) within the realm of the literal context of the word problem.
I still stand by the premise that the question is ambiguous to the point of forcing assumptions which is the basis of the discrepency that the study was suppposed to quantify.
A more properly worded question would induce less error into the answers and be of greater scientific value. It would be interesting to study in isolation the shift in wording and whether it has bearing on the outcome.
-Gryph