[Izkata]

> Sorry, no votes for you; it was "word".

If it was this, there would be quotes around "word".

> No, wait, you needed to underline every occurrence of the word "line".

If it was this, it wouldn't say "last".

This particular one is not ambiguous.

[GVIrish]

That's not the point. The test giver has free discretion to say either answer is correct or incorrect. You could argue that if the intent was to underline "word" that it would have quotes around it, but it doesn't matter because the test is not supposed to be fair or consistent.

Things like this were at the heart of what Jim Crow was in America. Selective and capricious enforcement of the law to disenfranchise and disadvantage black people at best, enable unaccountable violence against them at the worst.

[Izkata]

That's a different argument than what started this thread. Cheating administrators have nothing to do with whether that question is ambiguous or not.

[ImPostingOnHN]

It's not cheating administrators, it's ambiguous questions with multiple possible answers.

As the judge of this test, I interpret your answer as incorrect. I expected the phrase, "the last word in this line" to be underlined. Test failed, no cheating required.

(Note that had you underlined the phrase, "the last word in this line", I would have still judged it incorrect, claiming that "word" or "line" should be underlined. Again, this requires no cheating.)

[zahlman]

>As the judge of this test, I interpret your answer as incorrect.

This makes you a cheating administrator in this hypothetical,

>I expected the phrase, "the last word in this line" to be underlined.

... because this expectation is not valid.

Quotation marks are not merely needed to make the question "unambiguous"; they are needed to make your interpretation possible.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> This makes you a cheating administrator in this hypothetical

Actually, it doesn't.

> this expectation is not valid.

Actually, it is.

> Quotation marks are not merely needed to make the question "unambiguous"; they are needed to make your interpretation possible.

Actually, they are optional for that purpose, not required. Without them, the meaning is indeed ambiguous, with my interpretation indeed being valid.

The fact that we came up with 2 different, equally valid interpretations, just goes to show that the question is ambiguous.

Some other equally valid interpretations are explained by another poster here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41912790

[Izkata]

If it was this, there would be quotes around those 6 words, just like in your comment.

The quotes are needed to change this sentence from its clear meaning to these other ones.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> If it was this, there would be quotes around those 6 words, just like in your comment.

If there were quotes around those 6 words, it would make the question unambiguous, sure. But without the quotes, my interpretation and judgement is still valid.

> The quotes are needed to change this sentence from its clear meaning to these other ones.

Actually, they are optional for that purpose, not required. Without them, the meaning is ambiguous. Just as you claim your interpretation is the "clear meaning", others have exactly as valid a claim to their interpretation being the "clear meaning".

[mrguyorama]

>If it was this, there would be quotes around "word".

And who would you argue this to? The guy giving you the test who has the freedom to fail you for any reason they want?

There's no appeals court. These tests were not tests.