Was bored today and searched for a puzzle. Came across this one....

[DrGreg]

https://www.mensa.org.uk/puzzles/brainteasers?page=470

Until now, I thought Mensa was a high-IQ organisation.

 

[symbolipoint]

https://www.mensa.org.uk/puzzles/brainteasers?page=470

"...rose to..."
Now this would be along the lines of NOT instantaneous change, but been a gradual change. More credit for some who argued against our purely constant rates all-at-once interpretation.

 

[DaveC426913]

"...rose to..."

The text is the same as in the OP.

 

[symbolipoint]

The text is the same as in the OP.

Yes, and only now after all the discussion & explanation here that "rose to" is carrying its meaning so that even I might understand the problem description a little better.

 

[swampwiz]

So I am missing something in this one. The answr is 8. Can someone explain?
In a department store, with only one girl working on the gift-wrapping service, four gifts per hour were wrapped in the first 15 hours. With help from a colleague for the next 45 hours, the amount of gifts wrapped rose to seven per hour. How many gifts were wrapped each hour in the last 45 hours only?

The answer seems to be 7. It says that for time 15 < T < 60, the rate of gift-wrapping was 7, and if the final time is assumed to be 60 hours, then the last 45 hours was completely within that rate of 7 per hour. The rate for T < 15 is thus completely irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

It says that for time 15 < T < 60, the rate of gift-wrapping was 7

No it doesn't.

Reread the OP, and then follow the thread, which has addressed the same mistake you've made.

 

[swampwiz]

No it doesn't.

Reread the OP, and then follow the thread, which has addressed the same mistake you've made.

Uh, yes it does, at least for the original wording.

 

[jbriggs444]

Uh, yes it does, at least for the original wording.

It is a somewhat natural reading, yes. But it is a reading that makes the subsequent question pointless. So it is a reading that would normally be ignored in favor of the somewhat more strained reading that results in a mildly interesting calculation.

It has been persuasively argued that the resulting ambiguity in the question is intentional. Which would make any disagreement about the true and correct reading pointless. There is no true and correct reading of an intentionally ambiguous statement.

 

[swampwiz]

It is a somewhat natural reading, yes. But it is a reading that makes the subsequent question pointless. So it is a reading that would normally be ignored in favor of the somewhat more strained reading that results in a mildly interesting calculation.

It has been persuasively argued that the resulting ambiguity in the question is intentional. Which would make any disagreement about the true and correct reading pointless. There is no true and correct reading of an intentionally ambiguous statement.

I agree that the original wording makes it pointless question, other than to be a trick question. The thing is, what part of the question shall be presumed mistaken? I didn't a single logical conclusion.

 

[hutchphd]

Is this horse dead yet?

 

[phinds]

Yes. Please let it be dead.

 

[DaveC426913]

Uh, yes it does, at least for the original wording.

It says "rises to 7".

 

[phinds]

It says "rises to 7".

LET IT BE DEAD !

 

[DaveC426913]

Coming soon to theatres near you:

A girl falls in love with her race horse which dies, and she spends the rest of the movie studying spellcraft to bring it back to win the final race.

Necroprancer!
(You can't beat this dead horse!)

 

[mfb]

I think everything relevant has been said, repeating the same arguments yet another time wouldn't help.