|
||
|
Title: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by World Peace on Jul 7th, 2004, 4:54pm You are trapped in a fallout shelter with the members of your group. Radiation detection equipment indicates that it will not be safe outside for 6 months. Your shelter has sufficient food, water and other resources to allow all of you to survive during that time. However, a group trapped in a fallout shelter in another city has just contacted you with a request that you solve their problem: There are 9 people in their shelter, but they only have enough water to keep 4 people alive until it is safe to leave. They have decided that 5 of their members will have to be expelled from their shelter, but they cannot decide which ones to condemn to almost certain death. They have asked your group to make the decision on their behalf, and have agreed to follow it immediately and without question. Your task as a group is to decide which 4 people will remain in the other shelter. Make reasonable assumptions. The other group (in no particular order) consists of the following persons: * A 50 year old male biologist. * A 40 year old female attorney. * A 40 year old male minister. * A 28 year old pregnant college student. * A 25 year old male carpenter. * A 48 year old male mental patient. * A 6 year old female child. * A 68 year old male physician. * A 18 year old female college student. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Grimbal on Jul 7th, 2004, 5:17pm Drop the minister. He is the most likely to be the cause of the whole situation. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Leonid Broukhis on Jul 7th, 2004, 5:38pm Interesting, a human husbandry question! (That was the statement of assumptions, by the way.) If so, drop the biologist, the minister, the attorney, the mental patient and the child. The remaining are either useful (physician) or suitable for immediate reproduction. ...Although one could argue if a biologist can be more useful than a carpenter... |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by World Peace on Jul 7th, 2004, 8:58pm on 07/07/04 at 17:17:09, Grimbal wrote:
LOL! Indeed! ;) |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Noke Lieu on Jul 7th, 2004, 9:39pm There's no way this is easy... unless tehre's a crypitc puzzle hiding in the ethical dilemma How do you get them out without contaminating the others? Things that would change the outcome drastically: Anyone ill? How heavily pregnant? How much special care does the patient require? Enough water to keep four grown adults alive. The girl is presumably going to eat less and drink less than the others. If we keep the pregnant woman, then, depending on how pregnant she is, we may have to be considering the fact that we have to cater for 5. Admittedly its only 6 months, and the baby won't be drinking much water then, but damn, they're messy. Also, I don't see why they wouldn't create a crude distillery to recycle the water, in which case every one can stay. Except the lawyer. And the minister. But I think that's cheating. Dangerous radiation levels for 6 months. That's not so bad. So if they can move quickly, those ousted may be able to make it to wilderness quickly enough that they're unlikely to be subject to severe radiation poisoning. (actually areasonable thing over here- no-one is going to nuke the centre) That being the case, I'd evict the carpenter, the physician, the biologist, the younger college student . They can move quickly and are useful at the destinations. 68 isn't too bad. In my head none of them are overweight. Another consideration is the number of other fallout shelters. Thus breeding stock may not be a problem. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by towr on Jul 8th, 2004, 1:11am If they're going to die outside anyway, why not kill and eat someone. That could safe another person or two. Of course if the environment is heavily contaminated, chances are they won't find any food once they leave the fall-out shelter in six month, and they'll all starve anyway.. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Three Hands on Jul 8th, 2004, 5:25am I'd have thought that the carpenter would be very useful in terms of construction post-apocalypse, although wood may be scarce. However, he's the one person who shows any evidence of being skilled in construction, which is likely to be important once people come out. How useful the physician would be without access to the drugs he's used to is questionable, but the biologist may be able to adapt his knowledge adequately to fill that role, as well as identifying what is suitable to eat, etc. Hence, I'd probably keep the biologist. The attorney and the minister are also likely to be fairly practical in terms of establishing some appropriate social legal system, since they are most likely to understand the intricacies of the law, but again you'd only need one. I'm also assuming that these people are going to be the only surviving people of that kind of profession (quite possibly because all the others have been unceremoniously kicked out of the shelters they'd got to, or otherwise killed due to the feeings of the people inside ::) .) For both college students, there's the question of what they were studying, and how far through the course they'd got, but I'd probably suggest keeping one of them. Therefore, I'd probably choose: The carpenter The biologist The attorney The 18 year old student This is, however, working within the spirit of the question, rather than looking for potential loop-holes to save a few extra lives, or assume that they're all going to die anyway. I think evryone else has done a fine job of this already ::) (yes, that statement is hypocritical, as I''d probably do the same) |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Grimbal on Jul 8th, 2004, 6:43am I think some important information is missing. Is the whole planet in the same situation, or do you just happen to be in a region where a nuclear accident happened? Is everything destroyed, as you would expect after a nuclear holocaust, or is it just a matter of radioactive rain and dust that makes it unsafe to go outside? And of course, the question asked is not what is best for them. The question is what is best for you, in the other shelter. Which of these people do you want to see come out after 6 months? And that depends on what kind of people you have in your own shelter. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by towr on Jul 8th, 2004, 7:08am Well, considering I still need a girlfriend, I have my eyes on that 18 year old female college student ;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by TenaliRaman on Jul 8th, 2004, 9:10am Lets do the rounds by elimination. 1st under consideration "A 48 year old male mental patient." First of all he is getting old and secondly he doesn't have a good mental health. No matter how much we value every life , in this situation it is better to get him out. 2nd under consideration "A 28 year old pregnant college student." A pregnant woman needs more food than normal. It is necessary for both the health of the woman and the child to be in good condition. After six months ... possible situations .. she has given birth to a malnourished child which cannot be treated immediately or they have both been affected due to lack of sufficient food which could be hazardous to both their health. Though i have a soft spot for a pregnant woman, i think in the light of the situation she can prefer death than living through the horrible 6 months. 3rd and 4th under consideration "A 40 year old female attorney. A 40 year old male minister." Both are community servants and hence can abide by their ethical beliefs to give their own lives to save a few more. Moreover their existance after 6 months cannot help much to those who are alive. Hence they can sacrifice themselves. 5th under consideration "A 25 year old male carpenter." He is not particularly useful to the community as such when they come out of the "spot" they are in. He can sacrifice his life too. 6th and 7th under consideration "A 50 year old male biologist. A 68 year old male physician." They could be higly useful at the end of this entire ordeal. It could be recommended to save their lives. The remaining two don't particularly have any reasons to be saved either ..... Working through all those thoughts i find the biologist and the physician indispensable. Now that leaves us with two ppl to save and i have three ppl in my mind ... the 6yr old girl, the pregnant woman and the 18 yr old college student ..... After a bit of more thought the final list of ppl to be saved i feel is, 1>A 50 year old male biologist. 2>A 68 year old male physician. 3>A 6 year old female child. 4>A 28 year old pregnant college student. oO(Phew!!) |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Sir Col on Jul 8th, 2004, 9:45am We don't have enough information on any of them... * A 50 year old male biologist. What type of biology: human, plant, molecular? * A 40 year old male minister. A minister of what: diplomacy, politics, religion? * A 28 year old pregnant college student. Is this a male student who has gone one step too far with his course in genetics? * A 48 year old male mental patient. At least we know about his condition. How much could you trust the others? With what we know, I'd go with the following four: * A 40 year old male minister. We'd need someone to be so good at lying that the others would be convinced that there was any hope at all. * A 28 year old pregnant college student. We know that she can get pregnant, and being 28 and still at college would suggest that she's not too bright (it's obviously taken quite a few years to get there!) She could be easily pursuaded that the domestic chores was doing her part to save humanity. * A 25 year old male carpenter. Hopefully he'd be a handy man, who could "service" the women? * A 18 year old female college student. Two guys could make quite a mess around the shelter with their beer bottles and snack wrappers and it would be unreasonable to expect one woman to do all the work! ;) |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by d0000000d on Jul 9th, 2004, 4:57am physician 18 year old college student female child ME |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Three Hands on Jul 9th, 2004, 6:04am Unfortunately for your answer, d0000000d, you are not in that Nuclear Fallout Shelter, but you are in one which has the requisite food and water supplies to allow you to survive anyway. In the cases of these kinds of puzzles (popular in some interviews I believe) people also expect a certain amount of reasoning behind your answer as well - even if it is just "draw names out of a hat"... |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Grimbal on Jul 9th, 2004, 11:02am Did anybody consider taking some of our vast supply of water, our radiation-proof suits and deliver to them whatever water they need, or simply go and rescue them? Shouldn't we try this before to advise them who should be killed? Anyway, once a proposal has been made, can people vote against the proposal and throw out whoever did the proposal? And if a proposal is accepted, can the next person still make his/her own proposal and so on, and if there is any water left, is there a new round to redistribute the water that was assigned to those who were thrown out? ;D |
||
|
Title: NEW RIDDLE -- NEED ANSWER QUICKLY! Post by Nootch on Jul 9th, 2004, 11:14am At one time I belonged to an organization called the Pious Circle. Its members were of both sexes. One of them, who had been engaged to another and had thought better of it, sent her as a parting gift a ring with this inscription: FOR A GIRL I LOVED CONTRIVED; BY NATURE TOUGH, HER HEART HEART SURVIVED. The message has an ulterior significance. Can you guess what its significance is? |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Grimbal on Jul 9th, 2004, 5:10pm OK, you need the answer fast you probably don't know hidden text, so here it is - Remember it is a RING. - The word lengths are 3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3 5 8... Should be a piece of cake now. |
||
|
Title: Pious Circle Post by Leslie on Jul 12th, 2004, 9:15am thank you so much for your help. it truly stumped me. i missed the cut off for the "answer pool" but your reply actually helped me understand the riddle, even more so than when i learned the riddle. thanks so much. i'm sure i'll be in contact again. we get quizzed (for fun) weekly at work. take care -- leslie. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Speaker on Jul 13th, 2004, 2:14am Well, I say keep the four youngest. And, not for that reason only. The 28 year old pregnant woman should be saved because making babies is what society is all about. The carpenter should stay, because he can build things, and make the women pregent, which is what society is all about. The little 6 year old girl can stay, because after making babies, taking care of them is what society is all about. The 18 year old student can stay, because the carpenter needs someone to make a baby with. Finally, today's youth never do anything for society, so now's their chance. Also, they certainly did not cause the nuclear explosion, because two of them have never voted, and the other two have probably only voted once or twice. Plus, hey the older folks have lived long and "productive" and happy lives, so give the kids a chance. What about their genes? Can we select for diversity? (Or, does anyone want to argue for the alternative?) |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by rmsgrey on Jul 13th, 2004, 4:45am Or just tell them that at least one person in the shelter has red eyes? |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by towr on Jul 13th, 2004, 4:57am Yes, but if none of them has, it would mean they'd all kill themselves ;) Besides, otherwise there'd still have to be 5 with red eyes, else you'd still have to many left. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by avadron on Jan 1st, 2005, 7:24pm Let's make some reasonable assumptions. Someone has nuked the city you live in, who could it be? With the cold war over, no single country has any profits with nuking a city. The countries with nuclear bombs are USA, Russia, France, Great-Brittain, Israel, China, Pakistan, India. None of them would nuke any city. So who did? Probably terrorist that bought the bomb somewhere on the black market. Now what does all this means? It means that it is likely that only 1 city (the city you unfortunatly live in) is nuked. What does this mean? It means that the rest of the world is still there and it is not neccassary to save some peoples live for their knowledge to build society up again. For example the physician. Also, keeping the young woman for their ability to produce babies is not of great importance, the world is already over populated and even with one city gone, it will remain over populated. The mental patient's live however is worth less than the lives of the others. So I would send him out. Then draw the 4 other people at random. |
||
|
Title: Re: Nuclear Fallout Shelter Post by Grimbal on Jan 3rd, 2005, 2:48am One could save the pregnant woman, counting as 1 1/2 person. One could sacrifice the 68 old man, who counts for less "life time" to save. But it should be his choice. |
||
|
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4! Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board |