GMAT question - symantic problem?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
the question could mean "how many different possible entries exist in which it's not the case that all three digits are equal?"

like 001. you could say "are all three digits equal? no. therefore, all three digits are not equal."

in this case, you get 990.

[/ QUOTE ]


obv a lot of v smart people are disagreeing here, but this is, imo, the correct way to look at it.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the question could mean "how many different possible entries exist in which it's not the case that all three digits are equal?"

like 001. you could say "are all three digits equal? no. therefore, all three digits are not equal."

in this case, you get 990.

[/ QUOTE ]


obv a lot of v smart people are disagreeing here, but this is, imo, the correct way to look at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think any smart people are saying the 720 interpretation makes more sense

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
I can see one logical difference (maybe this is what you're getting at) - it's easier to evaluate the claim of the first statement because the relations are transitive, while the relations in the second statement are intransitive. That is, if a=b and b=c, then a=c. But if a!=b and b!=c, that doesn't mean that a!=c.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes this is exactly what i was trying to get at
i don't follow the difference between groups of 3 and 5 or what you were trying to say with that. probably beside the point anyway.

[The Dude]

It actually took me reading other people's responses to be sure where the ambiguity was, because it was pretty clear to me that 990 is what they were looking for.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the question could mean "how many different possible entries exist in which it's not the case that all three digits are equal?"

like 001. you could say "are all three digits equal? no. therefore, all three digits are not equal."

in this case, you get 990.

[/ QUOTE ]


obv a lot of v smart people are disagreeing here, but this is, imo, the correct way to look at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think any smart people are saying the 720 interpretation makes more sense

[/ QUOTE ]


If I had to bet on some sort of general intelligence contest, I dont think there is a person who has posted in this thread that Id rather have than Madnak. Except maybe Sephus, not sure, it would be close.

(obv disclaimer re: sample size of posts, etc)

[Sephus]

madnak is smarter than me.

[CallMeIshmael]

thats why it was only a maybe!

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


despite the ambiguity, it seems to me that the reader should be able to figure out that the writer meant 990. it would be an awfully stupid way to write the 720 question...in other words, if the writer meant 720, he would have to struggle to arrive at such an odd wording.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scope ambiguities are pretty common. Here it's the difference between "all three digits are not equal" and "not all three digits are equal." I have no problem reading the first one as saying that no two digits are the same digit (i.e., it is true of all three digits that none of them is the same as any other digit), and the second one as saying that not all three digits are the same digit.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the question could mean "how many different possible entries exist in which it's not the case that all three digits are equal?"

like 001. you could say "are all three digits equal? no. therefore, all three digits are not equal."

in this case, you get 990.

[/ QUOTE ]


obv a lot of v smart people are disagreeing here, but this is, imo, the correct way to look at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think any smart people are saying the 720 interpretation makes more sense

[/ QUOTE ]
I would take madnak over you any day.

What's more, he actually provided some linguistic analysis instead of "I'm a smart dude and therefore my opinion is right". If you actually were intelligent, you'd realize that.

Can you refute his linguistic analysis? All you've done so far is blow hot air.

[stinkypete]

phil,

fix pokerev and i'll refute whatever analysis you want me to refute