[snowwrestler]

There is a famous story of a hiring manager who divided the pile of resumes on his desk into two piles. "If you want to work for me, you need to be lucky," he said, and dropped one of the piles into the trash.

I bring that up because from the perspective of the hiring manager, it might not matter that interview questions are fair, simple, and clear. The point is to find a good candidate; as long as you do that, eliminating other good candidates along the way is acceptable.

Consider it this way: let's say your interview question requires your candidates to read your mind to some extent, or at least intuit what you mean, or at least share your assumptions. Isn't it possible that those attributes would be helpful in a new hire?

[smcgivern]

Absolutely. Are they more helpful than the other attributes you're disregarding in searching for the mind-reader, though? I'd suggest that people who can communicate clearly and don't put up with being asked to read minds are desirable candidates.

[hyperpape]

It all depends on whether your goal is to find one of the adequate candidates mixed into a sea of weak candidates, or if you need to find an extraordinary candidate mixed in with all the others.

In the first case, requiring candidates to be lucky is fine.