I was figuring a sure thing on five, with possibly about three more. One or two section labels seem to imply some test
context (possibly "puzzle jargon") not available to me; so including those parts in the ratio doesn't seem cricket.
Hint: I am pretty sure the Cinque they mention wasn't in the Symbionese Liberation Army. Being able to find alternate
legitimate answers always pleased me ("being smarter than the testmakers").
The knee of my test contentment curve happened as I hit three. Guess i'm still an underachiever.
PS: I'm trying to use no smileys for at least a week. It's part of an experiment.
This might dry my commentary out to brushfire-inducing levels. You've been duly warned.
Charlie Stross wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 03:15:54AM -0900, John Grigg wrote:
> > Was this devilishly difficult test designed mainly by one person, or was it shaped over many years of various profs making it harder and harder??
> > I would think only a handful of the most widely read professors of history and literature would have ANY chance of passing this test if no prior preparation were allowed!!
> I read it quickly, and I wasn't impressed. It looks easier this year
> than in times past -- I spotted at least six questions that I definitely
> knew the answer to.
> -- Charlie "six out of a hundred ain't bad" Stross
MMB is reachable via butler at comp dash lib dot o r g * My moronic mnemonic for smart behavior: "DICKS" == * * diplomacy, integrity, courage, kindness, skepticism. *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:32 MDT