Can /pol/ solve it?

>whats 49+14
god I hope you die soon, and painfully

>>23041113 (OP)
350

>>23041113 (OP)
112

>>23041113 (OP)
>7 wives
It's not legal to have more than one wife

>>23041113 (OP)
By far the gayest thread of the day. Go back to reddir kike

>>23041113 (OP)
7 children for 7 men = 49
7 wives for 7 men = 49 wives total
7 children for 49 wives = 343
343 + 49 = 392

>>23041114
>Each man has 7 wives
Retard.

>7 men have 7 wives each
So one standard imperial Mormon colony worth of people (or ~0.73 metric Latter-Day Saints)

448

>>23041113 (OP)
Not enough information because the language is ambiguous

>>23041118
This is a pretty gay kike thread, even though I know the answer I refuse to take part in this faggotry.

>>23041123
Yeah, how many were there going to St Ives?

>>23041120
The question is vague and unclear and we are the retards? Eat shit mathkike

>>23041113 (OP)
21, the trick is each man and each wife have 7 children, means there are only 7 children in total.

>>23041119
you fool

>>23041113 (OP)
you know its black people when the men are entering their 7th relationship with 7 kids

probably from different women too

>>23041118
If you can't answer it then there's no need to sperg out and resort to racial slurs. Take responsibility that you are not smart enough and move on.

>>23041120
>7 men have 7 wives
>they each have 7 wives, CHUD
Where the fuck did you read that?

>>23041113 (OP)
Trick question, two answers possible.

Assuming this question was administered in English, there are two possible correct interpretations that would lead to different answers.

>7 men have 7 wives

This could mean there are 7 couples. (7x7) or that 7 men have 7 wives apiece 7x(7x7)

It's Hebrew trickery and not something to seriously concern yourself with.

>>23041119
I got the same shit but perhaps im wrong.

>>23041113 (OP)
Maybe I'm stupid and or it's a language barrier
>7 men have 7 wives
Sounds like 1 wife per 1 man
Meaning 14 men and women
>Each man and each wife have 7 children
Sounds like 14 * 7 = 98 people in total.

>>23041131
>7 men have 7 wives
not
>7 men have a wife each
It seems pretty clear to me.

>>23041113 (OP)
Is this another one of them maths questions that's actually a semantics question? anyway I'm guessing 56

>>23041113 (OP)
399.

>>23041134
they said each men and each wife have 7 kids each. Not each couple.

>>23041127
>each man and each wife have 7 children
That means that every woman has 7. You're thinking of
>every man and every wife has 7

>>23041133
It could also mean the children are shared, or each individual parent has 7 separate children.

It's a made up troll question, there is several possible correct answers.

>>23041113 (OP)
343?

>>23041116

That's my conclusion too.

>>23041113 (OP)
98
/first
/thread

>>23041119
7 children for 7 men = 56

>>23041113 (OP)
63

>>23041113 (OP)
>7
unless some of the kids were men. kek

>>23041119
Its worded as if this question was postulated in some african or middle eastern shithole. Harvard is a university in the United States. Laws applicable, marriage is between TWO people. Notice how the word EACH is used two times where it doesn't matter, and not used at all where it should to justify your answer. If it were according to your math, the question would be as follows:
>7 men EACH have 7 wives
>EACH man and EACH wife
>EACH have 7 children.
But thats not how those evil fucking kikes at shartbook and sharddit operate, right? They use pilpul talmudic tactics because its okay to deceive a goyim.

>>23041133
63

7 times 7 plus 14

>7 men
>7 women
>7 children per man and woman
>9 people per family X 7
63?

>>23041120
Thats not how the question is presented you word twisting kike. Fucking die.

>>23041145
Agree. 7 + 2 then x6

>>23041113 (OP)
The real test of IQ is if you actually think this retarded nonsense is a real interview question at Harvard kek

>>23041113 (OP)
>7 men have 7 wives
Ok, so that's 49 wives in total...

>Each man and each wife have 7 children
So not only do they practice polygamy, but also wife-swapping. 7*49 ungodly copulations, each producing 7 children each. That's 2401 children.

7+49+2041 = 2097. Where's my diploma, Harvard?

>>23041138
That's right. I meant that there would be a total of 14 men and women. That means 14 men and women times 7 children.

>>23041119
Its not a math problem, it a reasoning problem.
>7 men with 7 wives
Is that 7+7 or 7*(1+7)

Is the child assumed exclusive or can it force inclusive?

So lowest number is (7 + 7) * 7 = 98 people
And highest number is (7 * 8) * 7 = 392 people

>>23041132
>It's Hebrew trickery and not something to seriously concern yourself with.
This is correct but if they wanted 7:1 ratio it would be 7 men have 7 wives each.

>>23041145
Oops 7

2058

42 kids per wife
42 wives per man
42 men per hole

>>23041113 (OP)
It's a trick question anons, the answer is 6,000,000 and to say any less is anti-semitic/holocaust denial. There you go, you just made it into Harvard.

>>23041119
So close.

343 kids
49 wives
7 men

It’s 399.

>>23041113 (OP)
IF exclusive
7*7=49 (men's kids) + 7*7=49 (woman's kids) +7men + 7 women (assuming women are people and not property) = 112

IF not exclusive
7*7=49 (men and women's kids) +7men + 7 women (assuming women are people and not property) = 63

>>23041113 (OP)
14x7 I don't care to calculate it but that's the answer

>>23041134
>Maybe I'm stupid and or it's a language barrier
No, you're just an honest white man and the kike loves to trick you and laugh at the fact that they can do so.

>>23041113 (OP)
It's 21.
7 Men
7 Wives
7 Children

Never once was "Each" said so we assume only 7 for each group. So the answer is 21.

>>23041120
mashallah

1 man +7 wives =8*7 families=56 people

each man has 7 kids with each of his 7 wives
7 kids * 7 wives = 49*7 families = 343 people
56 men and wives + 343 kids = 399 people total.

>>23041113 (OP)
>>23041123
This, bullshit question meant to divide people into groups. Wording is deliberately vague, ambiguous so that different people will have different interpretations. There is no real answer.

>>23041113 (OP)
Y'all are retarded, the answer is 8.2 billion.

>>23041154
yes, plus the original 14 men and women. So 98+14 = 112

109

Ambiguous wording; cannot be answered definitively. There are at least four legitimate answers based on the way the question is stated. Here's something unambiguous: OP simply can not stop sucking dicks.

>>23041113 (OP)
(each man, i.e 7) x 7 children + (each woman. i.e. 7) x 7 children + 2x7 parents
49 + 49 +14 = 112

Men: 7
Wives: 7 men * 7 wives/man = 49 wives
Children: (7 men + 49 wives) * 7 children/person = 56 people * 7 children/person = 392 children
Total people: 7 men + 49 wives + 392 children = 448 people

>>23041113 (OP)
My answer. I expect an acceptance letter soon.

>>23041169
Oh shit. You're right.

>>23041140
>It's a made up troll question, there is several possible correct answers.
this

>>23041113 (OP)
This is more a reading test than a math test.

>>23041173
you forgot one key thing

>>23041172
Repost the picture and circle where it says each.

>>23041148
This.
It doesn't say "7 men have 7 wives per man".
It's 63.

98

>>23041126
>cant do math
>cant read
>starts kvetching because illiterate
show skin.

>>23041152
>The real test of IQ is if you actually think this retarded nonsense is a real interview question at Harvard kek
This. /pol/ will jump on any opportunity to demonstrate its exceptional ability to do basic arithmetic, though.

>>23041136
pretty much

>>23041167
>deliberately vague
Its deliberate as to separate actual humans from shitskins/kikes

>>23041180
yeah and it doesn’t not say that either faggot. create the reality you want to live in. that’s how you get into hahvahd

>>23041166
This is the most regarded way of doing it.

And by regarded, I mean retarded.

Walk forward, retard:
7 men…
Each have 7 wives…
49 wives…
Each have 7 kids…
343 kids…

Then tally up to 399:
>>23041160

>>23041123
7 men, each have 7 wives. You have 7*7 = 49 women. That means 56 adults in total.

For children, each male+female couple makes 7 kids. There are 49 women, each pop out 7 kids. 49*7 = 343 children.

343+56 = 399 humans

Now, you can play word games and assume the each man and each wife have 7 children is saying each man ONLY has 7 children, or one per woman. This is incorrect as the "each wife" is improperly used and is misleading if the intent is to say each man only had 7 children. The question would be wrong if this was the intent. Calculating this wrong answer: that then brings the kids down to 49, and the total humans to 105. Additionally given the cultural circumstances of the question, this is the wrong answer, because in a harem as such, MANY children are produced, not one per. And it is totally possible for a man/wife pair to produce 10-12 children easily if no child birth death occurs, also likely in a harem due to the man's wealth.

Hello, Is it for an English exam of math exam?

>>23041113 (OP)
0
they're all subhuman

>>23041113 (OP)
THE ANSWER IS 7
WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE NOT PEOPLE YOU DUMB FUCKS

>>23041113 (OP)
it's obviously 73

>>23041169
Oh fug you’re right.
98 bros… we rushed the question…

>>23041188
>7 men, each have 7 wives.
The question doesn't say each.

Here's one the old-timers used to ask:

>As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with 7 wives
>Each wife had 7 sacks
>Each sack had 7 cats
>Each cat had 7 kits
>Kits, cats, sacks and wives, how many were going to St. Ives?

The answer, of course, is zero, or possibly unknown. Only the teller of the tale was going to St. Ives.

>>23041113 (OP)
7 men have 7 wives
EACH man and EACH wife has 7 kids

7x7 = 49
7x7 = 49
Answer = 98

>>23041113 (OP)
>Each man and each wife have 7 children
>each man has 7 children
(1 man + 1 woman +7 children) * 7
= 63 people

>>23041113 (OP)
7 man 7 woman = 7 family
7 family has 7 kids, man and woman have the same kid
7 children in total, because I interpret a monogamous society

I'm right and everyone else is wrong

>>23041189
It's for the psychiatry exam. There is only one man that has multiple personalities and suffers from delusions.

>>23041193
FUCK

NOW I'LL NEVER GET INTO HARVARD

>>23041113 (OP)
Fake. Dullards assume the problem is worded correctly and that there's only one possible correct answer.

Attempting to answer the question is failing the test.

>>23041135
I am a non-native, how do I understand this clearer than you do?
>checks flag
>checks demographic chart
Yeah... right... *sad sigh*

>>23041113 (OP)
Impossible to answer. About half of Harvard's students are subhuman shitskins, therefore an undermined amount of men, wives and children are not people.

>>23041154
But if a woman has a child, it's also her husband's child.

>>23041204
Not if it's from a previous marriage

>>23041204
they can both have 7 children each from their previous marriage, or bastards
a man-wife couple can have anywhere between 7 to 14 children

>>23041113 (OP)
Are we assuming monogamy here?
Are we assuming the kids are a result of a current marriage?
The children could be from previous marriages.
7 men + 49 wives + 49 mens kids + 2401 wifes kids = 2506 people

>>23041114
98+14
each man = 49
and (not or, not with)
each wife = 49

>>23041198
and also 7x3 , 21 people in total.
I'd do a 360 and walk away upon sighting bullshit tests like this

>>23041171
>Ambiguous wording
It is not clear if the children they have are 'shared'. This of course would be typical for "men and their wives" but is not necessarily the case. "Not necessarily" means not logical, non sequitur. It does not follow from the wording that each man and each wife have 7 children together.

>>23041113 (OP)
No fuck you its worded so vaguely that you can say any answer is wrong I hate (((schooling))) so much fuck off

>>23041119
Each man and each wife has 7 kids.
7 men
49 men’s kids
49 wives
343 wives’ kids
448 people

>>23041113 (OP)
not my problem

>>23041198
Yeah it goes to show you just how muslimized /pol/ has become Everyone in here jumping to misinterpret what is plainly written due to their polygamy fantasies.

>>23041196
You forgot to add the 14 parents.

>>23041211
>No fuck you its worded so vaguely that you can say any answer is wrong I hate (((schooling))) so much fuck off
OP literally just wrote it on a piece of paper and pasted the Harvard logo on it in MS paint.

Here's a better one. 7 Jews with 7 dicks visit the White House. Each dick has 7 balls. How many dicks and balls does Donald Trump slob over every time Benjamin Natanyahu barks at him?

This is just as ambiguous and unanswerable as ol' dumbshit OP's fake-ass question, but it is much more relatable and realistic.

>>23041207
>how many people are there
Statisticians estimate about 8 billion

>>23041113 (OP)
98

>>23041113 (OP)
Shifty fucking kikes.
105, assuming that 7 men each have 7 non-shared wives (56 adults, + 49 children)
((1+7)*7)+(7*7)
OR
63, assuming 7 men each have single wife, 14 adults + 49 children
14+(7*7)
Gas the kikes, I denounce the Talmud.

>>23041113 (OP)
7*7*7 = 343

>>23041113 (OP)
Wording unclear.
Could be 63 or 399.
Are Harvard testers the real retards?

>>23041216
Obviously but I feel like high school was the same shit sometimes the questions are stupid as fuck and they are obviously just testing for adequate group think and they can go die with that shit.

>>23041113 (OP)
Alright, let's start with the adults:
>7 men have 7 wives.
It doesn't say "7 men each have 7 wives," so I'll take this as a monogamous situation.
7 [Men] + 7 [Wives] = 14 [Adults]
Then figure out the number of children and add that.
>Each man and each wife have 7 children.
wtf is this sentence? You could have said "each couple has 7 children." Instead They added a layer of ambiguity.

However, being married to someone means their children are yours, at least in any reasonable society, so we can assume there is no doubling up, children who aren't considered the child of 1 parent, etc. So 7 kids.

14 [Adults] + 7 [Kids]
...Wait, something isn't right...
We don't know that the offspring of some of these couples aren't the other couples. It could be multigenerational. There would be fewer people than expected.

We don't have enough information. At best we have an upper limit, and that's already if we make assumptions about the speaker having basic family values, which is a nonstarter these days.

>>23041132
>could mean... that 7 men have 7 wives apiece 7x(7x7)
No it doesn't. If "my kids have 2 cats" it isn't a mystery total that depends on the number of kids I have. Do my 2 kids have 4 cats total? Do my 4 kids have 8 cats total? No. Neither is implied by what I said. If the phrasing excludes "each" or "apiece" then it is false to assume so.

Even if I said "my kids have 2 hands" it is implied that there are only 2 hands total among them. The correct english is "my kids have 2 hands each" or "all my kids have 2 hands"

>>23041205
>>23041206
This is getting very muddy regarding what it means for them to "have" a child.

>>23041113 (OP)
The wording implies 112 is the answer but not enough information to be sure.

>>23041211
> its worded so vaguely
As long as your answer is within the spectrum of logically possible answers it is not "wrong". You just need to be able to prove that this is the case. >>23041210

>>23041214
>Yeah it goes to show you just how muslimized /pol/ has become Everyone in here jumping to misinterpret what is plainly written due to their polygamy fantasies.
Cope. By the way, the question doesn't state the men have sex only with their own wives. It says "each man and each wife". The correct number of people is therefore 2097.

>>23041221
Wait 343 is the number of children, so it's 343 + 14 so 357

Fuck, I don't know, I went to school in America. Also I'm a nigger. 3? Yeah, 3 is good. I CAIN'T BREEVE.

>>23041119
confirmation India is not sending it's best and brightest to Canada.

>>23041207
>7 men + 49 wives

>>23041113 (OP)
This is a retarded gotcha because it could be read as each man having seven kids each with each wife OR each man having seven kids and each of his wives having their own unrelated kids

What kind of psyop is this?

>>23041200
>YWNBA HAVARD GRADUATE
YWNBA HAVARD GRADUATE
>YWNBA HAVARD GRADUATE
YWNBA HAVARD GRADUATE
>YWNBA HAVARD GRADUATE

>>23041231
what's the common core answer to this question

>>23041226
and we haven't even talked about buying child slaves yet

>>23041113 (OP)
49(number ofwives) x 7(number of kids)=343 kids
7(number of men)x7(number of wives for each man)= 49 wives
7(number of men)+343(number of kids) + 49(number of wives)=399 people

>>23041220
Oops,
399, assuming that 7 men each have 7 non-shared wives (56 adults, + 343 children)
((1+7)*7)+(7*7*7)
OR
63, assuming 7 men each have single wife, 14 adults + 49 children
14+(7*7)
Still gas the kikes tho.

>>23041113 (OP)
The answer is either 7 or 0. Women and children aren't people nor are men who take multiple wives.

>>23041196
They have the same kid. If man has a son and his wife have a son, the man’s sone and his wife son is the same person. Answer is 63

>>23041200
wear blackface

>>23041113 (OP)
0 because polygamy is illegal and everyone was arrested or sent to CPS

>>23041113 (OP)
63

>>23041230
343 + 49+7, chmon bruce, dudes had 7 wives each

>>23041135
Correct. The next sentence make clear that if "each" is meant it is also mentioned. If it's not mentioned it must not be assumed.

>>23041113 (OP)
I assume most people fail because they immediately read it as each man has seven wives, when all it says is seven men have seven wives and conventional logic and a working brain tells you that each man is married to one wife.
Low IQ people will have a tendency to try to get too cute with the answer.

>>23041120
>pajeet nigger can't read
many such cases saar

>>23041228
That's fucking retarded, bucko. I hate the antichrist.

>>23041247
You're one of the lowest-IQ posters ITT.

>>23041113 (OP)
7^3

>>23041113 (OP)
It’s got to be 63. 7 men + 7 women = 14 people. If each set of man/woman have 7 kids, that’s 49. 49 + 14 is 63.
Is it a trick question? If so, I’m stoned and I can’t see the trick.

>>23041202
A common misconception about Canada is that it was originally an English country which was then filled with various flavors of brown.
Truth is, Canada has two official languages to accomodate a historical French minority. Which I am part of. Yes, I am ESL, but I can trace my lineage in Canada back to the days Anglos were still fucking sheep in New England. In fact, I never use English in my day to day life.
That said, I am right and you are wrong.
kys.

This thread was sent here to die.

>>512075666
You have to assume "have" means possession. If the writer was intending to mean that they were creating kids, then they should have wrote "each couple have 7 children"

>>23041250
>Moldova
Lay off the krokodil comrade

>>512073391
49×7=343
90 percent of 343 is 308.7
343-309=34
There are 34 people left

>>23041153
picrel

man MOTHER FUCK YOU JANNIE ASS BITCHES, FUCK INDIA, TOTAL JEET DEATH, FUCK TROONS, TOTAL TROON DEATH, FUCK KIKES, TKD!
>>23041195
nigga that's from diehard, pfft hahahaha old timers huh, dumb fucking zoomer
>>23041252
>7 men had 7 wives
that means there were 49 wives dude

>>23041130
the premise of your shitty meme is that the supposedly highly educated couldn't even solve it.
do you have any idea how hard it is to even be in a position to apply for one of these schools?
because they wouldn't take your shitty GPA, that's for sure. i'm guessing not trying to get in is the hurdle keeping you from knowing how hard it is to get in, but i actually pay attention to the world around me so i know this.

bottom line you're being the thing you hate.

>>23041483
If you have wealthy alumni parents or can pay for a fake degree at an overseas university that Harvard has a deal with then sure you can get in, easy

Can someone recognize the simple fact that this could be a multigenerational thing and some of the children could be among the married people listed.

>>23041113 (OP)
>>23041483
>>23041499
>>23041503
the question is ambiguously written
you people still bother with this shit?

>>23041239
And there is a 3rd very jewish possibility, note that the question does not state that the couples have children with each other, only that 7 men and 7 wives have 7 children, such that:
98, assuming 7 men and 7 wives each have 7 children:
(7*7)+(7*7)=98
Crafty kikes.

>>23041483
>>23041499
also this was written on some paper and taken a picture of, and the harvard logo was photoshopped in the corner

>>23041513
True, but the other people ITT are hung up on the least ambiguous parts of the question and have overlooked the most obvious issue, which is what annoys me.

"the premise of your shitty meme"
i'm killing myself
>>23041514
it seems like you're trying to figure out all the possible answers with the way it's worded, which is kind of interesting
still though, the question wasn't carefully worded ambiguously as a puzzle for you to solve, it's just a low-effort ambiguous thing designed to waste your time, which is what you're doing

>>23041530
that's what always happens
this has happened dozens of times now with these questions
i think it's the CIA trying to measure how mindfucked/non-coordinated the board is

>>23041530
>05598447954e6b5e2a1aa2976(...).png

i'm outta here
good luck though

21

>>23041539
fuck, I can't find the one I wanted to send back.

>>23041552
22

>>23041574
i feel you

7 man 7 wifes = 14
14x7=98
7 man + 7 wife + 98 children
=112 (Answer)

7x2=14
14x7=98
simple

Seven seals, seven rings
Seven brides for the Scarlet King
https://youtu.be/q_v4FjGPoZE?feature=shared

>>23041708
i remember that SCP

I interpret the question thus: "there be seven men. Each of these men have seven wives. Each man and each wife have seven children."
Envision the following: a file of seven men. Now, let each wife stand behind her husband. The result is a rectangular array of people seven by eight, so that there are fifty and six adults. Now envision each adult's children standing on top of him. Now there is a cubic array seven by eight by eight, such that there are four hundred and fourty and eight people, and thus the solution is 448.