View previous topic | View next topic

What if "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" got it wro

Page 3 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

djgordy
189940.  Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:42 pm Reply with quote

There was a question on the People's Quiz Wild Card: "Which English King is depicted on the Bayeaux Tapestry".

The contestant answered "William the Conqueror" which was given as wrong, the right answer bring given as Harold II. The contestant was eliminated from the contest. However, William the Conqueror is the Bayeaux Tapestry (as, indeed, is Edward the Confessor) so the contestant's answer was correct.

(Let's deal with the nitpickers shall we?

1st nitpick - William didn't become king until his coronation, an event which doesn't appear on the tapestry. True, but the name "William the Conqueror" still refers to the same person. If you were to ask "when was Queen Elizabeth II born?", the answer wouldn't be "never because she wasn't queen when she was born". We accept that Queen Elizabeth II can be referred to by that name when discussing event in her life that occured before she became Queen.

2nd nitpick - William was Norman, not English. The Englishness of William comes about due to the people he was king of and doesn't necessarily refer to his own personal nationality. )

 
jaygeemack
189989.  Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:08 pm Reply with quote

joek wrote:
On the english version

'UK', if you don't mind!

 
suze
189997.  Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:42 pm Reply with quote

I'll certainly give you the first nitpick, djg - I entirely accept that point.

As for "English King" though, I'm less sure. He was King of England, and had the question used that phrase I'd take the point you are making. But as you note, he wasn't English - and the sort of awkward sods who write quizzes sometimes use deviousness of that kind deliberately.

All the same, I agree that Edward the Confessor would have been an entirely valid answer.

 
Basel
191789.  Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:15 am Reply with quote

I remember a time when WWTBAM got an answer wrong but the bloke also got it worng, so he got it right (if you see what I mean).

Something to do with the minimum number of times a tennis player needed hit a ball to win a set. They'd not considered that a player didn't need to hit the ball to win a point when not serving.

IIRC it was acknowledged by WWTBAM but they did nothing about it - I guess it would have been mean to take their money back.

 
suze
191860.  Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:20 am Reply with quote

Ah, the tennis question. WWTBAM went with 24 (4 points x 6 games), but later accepted that the answer ought to have been 12 (4 points x 3 service games, assuming that the opponent doesn't get a serve in at any point).

But should it, in fact? I used this question in an online quiz which I ran a few months back, and much debate ensued.

There are actually two mechanisms by which the answer could be zero.

1. The opponent might default before a ball has been hit, therefore conceding the set and the match. It does happen occasionally, usually because a player is injured.
2. (Thanks to WordLover for this one.) It might be doubles, in which case one member of the pair might make all the shots (in a set of doubles, each player must have at least one service game - but it's possible to lose a service game without hitting the ball*). His partner therefore wins without hitting the ball.

But if we leave aside 1. as a technicality since the match didn't actually take place and 2. as preposterous, an answer of one is still possible.

jimmyc99 came up with this, so rather than steal his thunder I shall direct you to his post to read how it's done. Think about it for a few minutes before you go and look though!


* Oh yes it is! If one doesn't like one's ball toss, one may catch the ball or indeed let it fall to ground and have another go, but if one swings and misses then it's a fault.

 
Izzardesque
192146.  Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:52 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:


As for "English King" though, I'm less sure. He was King of England, and had the question used that phrase I'd take the point you are making. But as you note, he wasn't English - and the sort of awkward sods who write quizzes sometimes use deviousness of that kind deliberately.



thats what I thought.

 
Pyriform
460282.  Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:55 pm Reply with quote

On yesterday's show they asked "How many squares are there in a sudoku puzzle?". The answer they wanted was 81. I think I know the real answer. Anybody else want to try?

 
Moosh
460284.  Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:04 pm Reply with quote

Bloody loads. I'm not even gonna attempt to count them because I've had rather too much to drink to do it accurately.

 
costean
460287.  Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:10 pm Reply with quote

285?

 
Pyriform
460288.  Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:14 pm Reply with quote

Yes, costean, that's the answer I got. 9*9 of the small squares, 8*8 which are 4 times that size, and so on up to 1*1 big square.

 
Nigelblt
460289.  Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:16 pm Reply with quote

Sum of the first 9 squares = 285.

 
costean
460292.  Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:32 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Sum of the first 9 squares = 285.

That's what I did. It's rather a good question!

 
Moosh
460321.  Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:08 pm Reply with quote

Pyriform wrote:
On yesterday's show they asked "How many squares are there in a sudoku puzzle?". The answer they wanted was 81. I think I know the real answer. Anybody else want to try?


What would happen, do you imagine, if the contestant pointed out that it was 285 when asked the question? And showed why it is that.

 
Davini994
460336.  Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:33 pm Reply with quote

They would immediately get the presenters job and Chris Tarrant would be incinerated.

 
bobwilson
460502.  Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:06 pm Reply with quote

On the first question - (Robert Walpole) - the question may have been badly worded but that's irrelevant. They named Robert Walpole (even if you accept that describing him as the first PM is wrong). No matter how you read the question, the intent is clear - when did RW become First Minister? If they'd given the option of "never" it'd be a different kettle fish.

But on Mikeyfone's question (start of WW1). The start of WW2 is often given as the date of declaration of war by England v Germany. But it couldn't be considered a World War until at least the Soviet Union was involved (June 1941), and probably the US and Japan (December 1941). If you're going to include hangovers from previous local wars then you could give dates varying from 1936 (Spanish Civil War) to 1931 (Japanese / Chinese War).

Quote:
I questioned it but was told it was definately right, and I was wrong. They had a book.
The ultimate defence of the ignorant Mikey.

 

Page 3 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group