udosuk wrote:Even for an innings in a cricket match, there could be 0 out (winning by 10 wickets)... But I maintain that it's a baseball inning not a cricket innings...
OK. I did previously acknowledge in the following quote that this question did relate to a baseball inning and not a cricket innings:
myself wrote:Following Hud's and udosuk's above comments and the answer provided by the Test "source" I would now conclude that question (d) was intended to relate to baseball and not cricket ..."
You are entitled to your view that the question clearly related to a baseball inning but I'm also entitled to assume other people may have a different opinion and mis-interpret the question, as I did, to be referring to cricket. As such, I decided it reasonable for anyone to change their answer to a "baseball" question.
I agree with your comment that a team could complete an innings without losing a wicket which is one of a number of scenareos as to why
I couldn't understand this question. When posting the "Test" I was certainly interested in knowing how this question would be answered which eventually shed light on me that the question was referring to baseball.
udosuk wrote:"..In your initial post (top of the page) you wrote 16 sheep. Now you say 17?
You are correct and I apologize for this error. The "Test" questions emailed to me, which I copied and pasted from the screen shot, reads 16 sheep whilst the screen shot of the "Answer Key" page, which I also copied and pasted from the source, reads 17 sheep.
udosuk wrote:"Depends, if it's a casual posting then mis-spelling is very usual (like those from you & me)... But I suspect this list is extracted from a published book (those questions are all very familiar), in that case it could have already been well proof-read by the editor... If it's being transferred/forwarded many many times then mis-spellings should be even rarer as any intermediate party would have corrected them..."
Yes.. this seems a reasonable assumption but there are exceptions, as I experienced (embarressingly) in this case where, to my surprize, the two pages (question and answer sheets) differed as to the number of sheep. To be honest it didn't even enter my head to proof-read the two sheets which both included the "same" questions which I naturally assumed would both be correct. I'm more than happy to email the two pages if I had a forwarding email address.
udosuk wrote:"Beside mis-spelling, mis-quoting somebody's user name is considered not very polite IMHO]..."
Yes, I agree udosuk and I apologize for mis-spelling your user-name. I always try to be careful and at 2am my thinking wasn't the best in trying to post these answers last night.
Cec