That's true, it doesn't matter what the population is, but it DOES matter how many people are eligible to vote, which is a percentage of total population.
(.05 * population) * turnoutrate = 10 million
In that equation .05 * population is the eligible voters. Therefore if you take 10 million and multiply by 20 you are assuming that 100% of the population is eligible to vote. I don't see anything in the problem that makes that assumption reasonable.
turnoutrate = 10 million/(.05*population)
totalvotes = turnoutrate * eligible voters
totalvotes = (10 million/(.05*population)) * eligible voters
If you know eligible voters as a percentage of population then population cancels and you can solve the problem.
Free Duck, you deserve an award. You have demonstrated how stupid the question is. It cannot be answered with the information given because although it says that another 5% of the population being elgible to vote would yield 10 million votes, the question does not give us what percentage of the population was elgible to vote before the 5% increase. If it was only 5%, then 10 million would have voted, if it was 10%, it would have been 20 million, and if it was 50%, it would have been 100 million. We don't know.
Free Duck wins. I win partially because I said the question was ambiguous, but it was even worse, unanswerable. Parados, fishin, and imposter are wrong. It was either a trick question or a stupid question without an answer. And as I said at the beginning, the person making up the test needs to go back to school instead of trying to teach other people.
And I was momentarily swayed by parados and imposter's thinking, and framed what I thought was a more logical quesiton, but it was just as stupid. My apologies. My first gut reaction and assessment of the question turned out to be correct.
Parados and imposter, where are you on this thread? You that called the rest of us the same as idiots for criticizing the question. After all, you said the question was the same as so simple and unambiguous that anyone could solve it. Simple math you said.
Is this the same clear reasoning you guys use on all the threads?
Parados and imposter, still waiting on you here to explain further how mathematically simple this problem was. It should be a breeze for you to prove it.
Nowhere does it say "5% of the population." It says, "5% = 10,000,000."
It says: if another 5% of the population had been eligible to vote , 10 million more votes would have been cast
If another 5% of the population....
FICTION: All eligible to vote does not equal to all will vote. It's a math problem.
FYI: Math problems are notorious for introducing topics that are fictional in nature. If "x" equals "y", what is "z?"
If 1000 men each has 20 wives, how many wives are there?
"increase in edible voter"
I thought the thread was about cannibalism.
cicerone imposter wrote:FICTION: All eligible to vote does not equal to all will vote. It's a math problem.
I repeat:
It cannot be answered with the information given because although it says that another 5% of the population being elgible to vote would yield another 10 million votes, the question does not give us what percentage of the population was elgible to vote before the 5% increase. If it was only 5%, then 10 million would have voted, if it was 10%, it would have been 20 million, and if it was 50%, it would have been 100 million. We don't know.
imposter, for once, just once, admit you were wrong. Do you have the honor to do it? Or are you capable of it? It is staring you in the face.
chumly.
