I cant give theanswer on Facebook as it was a condition.

[Freightman]

Well, see, that's a much bigger problem, because now, all you have to do is say that each monkey had TWO tortoises in each hand, and now what?? It won't do (at least for me) to say that you can reason this in two completely different ways and still get to 10, because the claim is now that, no matter how you construe the language, you will (accidentally?) get to 10 regardless. I don't like that at all. Put TWO tortoises in each hand and NOW tell me what the correct answer is!

As a math teacher, it has always mattered to me HOW you get the (right) answer and not simply that you DID get the right answer. Example: how much is 1 + 2 + 3? First answer: 6. Why? Because 1 + 2 = 3, and 3 + 3 = 6. Second answer: 6. Why? Because 1 + 2 = 4, and 4 + 3 = 6! In the latter, all you have to do is make two mistakes, and your answer is just fine, right? No, not to me.

And, yet again, tell me very specifically, what in the language rules out definitively that they are ALL going in the same direction?

It is the same for the very famous "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives ..." problem. Why must it be automatically assumed that "met" means "crossed paths with"? If you met someone while going to the casino (and hit it off), couldn't the two of you have wound up in the casino together, forming a new friendship? Food for thought? Indeed.

Don

First, I agree with ALMOST everything you said. There can be only be 1 answer. The fact that they’re 2 ways to get there doesn’t mean they’re both right. It is coincidental. Nothing that a well placed comma couldn’t clarify.

Second, to add to your plethora of what might become true, I unveil for your consideration and analysis

“If my bubba had baitsim, she’d be my zaida.

If that in fact had been the case with my own grandparents, I would have lamented the loss of my Saturday night kosher salami sandwiches.

[DSchles]

Don

[Freightman]

Don

That was Chicago blue label. My dad used to hang it on the fridge door and let it dry out. My wife could never get into that habit, and I still lament the loss of great salami.

[Gronbog]

They’re 2 ways to get to 10.
1 rabbit and 9 elephants or
1 rabbit 3 monkeys with each monkey having a 1 tortoise in Each hand.

I agree with Don that the puzzle doesn't say anything at all about whether the 9 elephants were or were not going to the river. If not, then we have to assume that "every" elephant saw the same three monkeys in order to get an answer at all, which is 10.

However, if the 9 elephants are going to the river, then the answer cannot be 10, because the monkeys are still going to the river carrying their tortoises. We still need to assume that "every" elephant saw the same three monkeys in order to get an answer. However that answer is now 19.

[vhalen]

1 rabbit + 3 ,monkeys + 6 tortoises = 10 going to river

[Frank Galvin]

Don or Gronbog, please explain to me how you conclude that the puzzle definitively states that each of the elephants saw the same 3 monkeys going to the river.

If so, my answer was, and remains 10. If not, my answer ranges from 10 through 82.

Thank you!!!

[DSchles]

Absent language that says, "Every elephant saw three DIFFERENT monkeys going to the river," there's no reason to make that leap of faith. The words simply don't support it. Three monkeys were going to the river, and ALL the elephants saw those three monkeys.

That my interpretation, and I'm sticking to it!

Don

[Gronbog]

Yes. As I explained in my original answer, because the sentence was "Every elephant saw 3 monkeys ..." as opposed to "Each elephant saw three monkeys ..." we are forced to assume that they were all the same 3 monkeys. Otherwise there is an indeterminate number of monkeys. This is because "Every elephant" does not restrict things to the 9 that the rabbit saw as "Each elephant" does.

[BJPloppy]

Absent language that says, "Every elephant saw three DIFFERENT monkeys going to the river," there's no reason to make that leap of faith. The words simply don't support it. Three monkeys were going to the river, and ALL the elephants saw those three monkeys.

That my interpretation, and I'm sticking to it!

I know you would never have let such an ambiguously worded problem make it to one of your tests, but if you were responsible for grading this problem, would you accept a student's interpretation that every elephant saw three different monkeys?
I ask because this is giving me a flashback of an ugly argument I had with my stat professor (over 40 years ago).

[DSchles]

if you were responsible for grading this problem, would you accept a student's interpretation that every elephant saw three different monkeys?

You're right, I wouldn't have worded it this way. So, it's hard to then ask what I would accept for an answer to a somewhat flawed question. I think of it this way: suppose you have a classroom with 30 students and a teacher in the front. If you make the statement: every student sees a teacher, do you really want that to mean that there could be 30 teachers in the room? In just isn't the normal, or logical, interpretation, in my view.

If you want the original wording to mean three different monkeys, then say so!

Don