Why can't ESLs get this right?

>>213494380 (OP)
777

>>213494380 (OP)
7 obviously

>>213494380 (OP)
>Longhouse arithmetics

>>213494380 (OP)
Whole buncha people

>>213494380 (OP)
49? it doesn't say the men and women are married or that they have kids together

>>213494380 (OP)
isn't it just (7x7) + 7?

>>213494504
it's 77

14+49, 63?

Zero, there was no food left.

>>213494527
Correct.
Each family is 1 man + 1 wife + 7 children => 9 people.
9 people times 7 => 63.

>>213494380 (OP)
7•7+7•7
98

>>213494380 (OP)
Impossible to answer. We all know that women are subhuman and the number of sons was never specified.

>>213494790
this

>>213494380 (OP)
This could be a Swedish family we are talking about. The 7 men could share the 7 wives and they all have 7 children for each pair. Except there would be no children just a dog so idk.

>>213494380 (OP)
7+ 7^2 + 7^3 if we assume each man as 7 wives because that's what it sounds like to me

>>213494380 (OP)
Are you sure these are men and women and not rabbits?

>>213494380 (OP)
>each man and each wife
thats the confusing part, do they mean each individual person have 7 kids or do they mean each couple?
its the difference of 49 or 98 kids to the already 14 men and wifes.

>>213494380 (OP)
It says "each" twice, so there's 98 kids and 112 people in total

>>213495022
...or 7 men have 7 wifes each.
this kind of word trickery is just dumb and doesnt really mean anything but the writer being poor at words.

98 + 14

>>213494380 (OP)
49 wives in total
7 men in total

56 men and wives
7 each would be 392

392

ESLs didn't disappoint
The answer is 399

>>213495322
forgot to add the 56 people you're meant to multiply off of. the answer is 448.

21
just add it all up

>>213494380 (OP)
The way that's written implies that each man has 7 wives.
So 7x7 is 49 wives in total each wife with 7 children is 343 children in total. So 392 children and wives plus 7 Husbands are 399 People in total.

Retarded dumbass ambiguous language engagement bait

>>213494380 (OP)
i got 392

>>213495322
>>213495945
>>213497129
How? It doesn't say "each" in the first sentence. This means it's 7 wives distributed among 7 men.

>>213494380 (OP)
Wouldn't that be 49×7, or am I unironically an ESL? This is very Indian or boomer Asian coded, don't ask me why.

>>213495022
yeah this. i guess the most logical answer would be 63 (2*7+7*7), but a question that can be interpreted in more than one way is a bad question. also a monolingual shitting on ESL's, i always find their total lack of self awareness hilarious. usually they are arrogant americans but now it's an ausfalian for a change

>>213494380 (OP)
It's a purposely obtuse question that wouldn't pass vetting in any reputable university. The purpose of any test is to fairly measure a student's grasp of the material being taught. "Tricky" questions defeats this purpose. Heck, even how you arrange questions on the exam sheet can be unfair. E.g., making correct MCQ answers all A in a row is unfair.
t. associate prof

>>213494527
thought the same thing

>>213494380 (OP)
you don't bury the survivors

>>213495037
But if a man has a kid and a woman has a kid it can be the same kid. "Each" doesn't imply they're different kids.
For a Harvard exercise this is very vaguely worded.

>>213494380 (OP)
This shit is ambiguous, obviously. And they wouldn't put this retarded question in any stupid uni entrance exam.

>>213494380 (OP)
21

>>213494380 (OP)
Too many assumptions need to be made to answer this question

>>213494380 (OP)
Because its purposefully ambiguous. Depending on your interpretation it's 7^3, 9 * 7.

>>213494380 (OP)
7 men have 7 wives -> 49 wives total
Each man and each wife (nowhere is stated they are restricted to their wives) -> 7 x 49 = 7^3
... have 7 children: 7^4 children
... plus 7 men: 7^4 + 7
... plus the wives: 7^4 + 49 + 7

>>213494527
Correct. Even though the wording isn't clear, I'd say it is clear enough to an EFL speaker that it would make sense to assume that each man has 7 wives each. However, if you replace wives with an object, like bananas, I think most would be inclined to assume that it was now a case of 7 objects shared between the 7 men, but there is some kind of hidden meaning and intrinsic pairing when wives are used instead. It's just dependent on how the entities are grouped.

>>213496954
If they're polygamous then yes this is correct

>>213497246
>each man and wife
>each man and each wife
Think about the differences between these two sentences.

>>213499539
>>213499588
>>213499705
ESLs detected. Back to school Ramirez and Abdul.

>>213500579
All this means is that man and wive get counted separately, having 7 kids each. It doesn't say anything about the amount of wives

>>213500687
Utterly filtered.

>>213500775
I accept your concession

>>213494380 (OP)
7
Women and children are not people

>>213500845
350.
7x(7x7)+7

>>213494790
The only one ITT that is getting into Harvard.

>>213494380 (OP)
i’ll bite
>7 men have 7 wives
1. they correspond to each other, so there’s 7 men and 7 wives
2. every man has 7 wives, so there’s 7 men and 49 wives
>each man and each wife have 7 children
a. every person has 7 children, so there’s 7×(men+wives) children
b. every man has 7 children in his family, so there’s 7×men children
c. every man has 7 children with each of his wives, so there’s 7×(wife/man)×man, or 7×wife children
d. every man has 7 children with every wife (the orgy setting), so there’s 7×(men×wives) children

then the answers are:
1a. 112
1b. 63
1c. 63
1d. 357
2a. 448
2b. 105
2c. 399
2d. 2457

>>213497259
>This is very Indian or boomer Asian coded, don't ask me why
i’ll answer for you
>tricky math question
>attributed to a famous anglo university
>99.9% couldn’t solve this!
>middle school arithmetic at most
>janky english
probably comes from facebook too

>>213494380 (OP)
ESLs getting any number but 63 have me HOWLING

>>213494380 (OP)
7 men have 7 wives (each)
Each man and wife (pair) have 7 children.

There are 7*7 pairs thus 7*7*7 children

>>213494380 (OP)
As a monolingual EFL, it's undoubtedly 112.

It's 63 in 49 states and 399 in Utah
Too ez

>>213494380 (OP)
7 men, 49 women.
>each man and each wife
Meaning each pairing of a man and a woman, so essentially 49 * 7 children. 399 people in total.

>>213494380 (OP)
>7 men have 7 wives.
This statement on it's own could be interpreted two different ways, but the second statement seems to make only one interpretation correct.
>Each man and each wife have 7 children.
This implies that each individual has 7 children, not that there are 7 children per couple.
Any solution involving polygamy contradicts the second statement.
If each man has 7 wives, and each of his wives has 7 children, then each man must have 49 children.
Conversely, if each man has 7 wives and 7 children, that would mean that each of his wives must have 1 child.
If we assume instead that the first statement means that there are 7 men who collectively have 7 wives, there are no contradictions.
Each man has a wife and 7 children, so their wife obviously also has 7 children.
Since there are 7 couples in total, and each couple has 7 children, the total number of people is 63.

>>213504718
>This implies that each individual has 7 children, not that there are 7 children per couple.
I thought about this too, but if that were the case, then the wording should be "Each man and each wife HAS 7 children" instead of "Each man and each wife HAVE 7 children". Or am I wrong?

>>213494380 (OP)
Demonic question normalizing men and women in marriage having separate children.
2*(7+(7*7))

>>213504718
The men's and women's children are from a previous relationship

>>213494380 (OP)
7+7^2+7^3=399
idk how you guys got anything else

>>213505371
Interesting, I hadn't thought of that.
Have does imply plurality, but they specifically refer to
>each man and each wife
which seems intended to convey that they are referring to individuals rather than couples, since they could have just said
>each man and wife
otherwise.
So either the answer is 399 and they have a redundant use of the word "each", or they used "have" when they should have used the word "has". Either way, the wording could have been more clear.

(7*7)+14=63

>>213505903
In that case, the answer could either be 112 or 448, depending on how you interpret the first statement.

Language of the question isn't specific enough, rendering any attempts at an answer pure sophistry

>>213502044
The only thing I'd add to this is prefacing it with a reprimand to the person issuing the question for their imprecise phrasing.

7 Husbandos
7 waifus
=7 couples
7 couples × 7 children = 42
7 couples = 14 nigs and niggettes
14 + 42 = 56
56 niggas in total

8*7*7 = 392

BY ALLAH MEN CAN ONLY HAVE 4 WIVES