Question 2, being on the more humorous side, isn't completely logically consistent.
2a)You open the door and put the elephant in the fridge, and close the door. It appears that you made some assumption about either the smallness of the fridge or the largeness of the elephant. Also theoretically tests if you went for a simple solution or try to overcomplicate things.
2b)You open the door, take out the elephant, put in the giraffe, and shut the door. In theory, this tests you ability to track the state of a problem and your previous actions. The part that pisses me off, is you usually lose points for not taking the elephant out first. If I have a theoretical fridge that's big enough to hold an elephant, why can't it be big enough to hold a giraffe at the same time?
2c) This one is easy after you've been given the answer to number 2b. Obviously the giraffe is missing, since he's still locked in the fridge.
2d)Just swim across, all the alligators are at the jungle meeting from 2c.
Elephants do not exist, so there could not possibly be one in this room. Instead, let's self-soothe with talk of flaws in common elephant-detection methodologies, because that will reassure us that the room is elephant-free. Nevermind the pervasive smell of elephant shit.
The last time they checked (AFAIK in 2004) the Elephant's foot was porous and extremely fragile. In the 1980s they couldn't get a sample even using the hardest tools; in 2004 they could stick a finger right through.
Footprints in the butter.
reply