Re: Sectionals questions

• From: fluidmosaic6 <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:18:06 -0000
• Message-ID: <b2ds3u+i62k_at_...>

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "R. Robert Hentzel <topquark_at_s...>" 
<topquark_at_s...> wrote:
> --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, jp_lien <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> > Actually, one of our B team members negged with odd as well, so I 
> > should admit that this question has some elements of a hose.  I'd 
> > dispute the point that it would cause a math person to get 
beaten, 
> > because I'd tend to doubt that a non math person would come up 
with 
> > 'surjective' very quickly (if at all).  I'm not sure if the more 
> > common (if grammatically hideous) 'onto' was acceptable, although 
> 
> "onto" was acceptable.
> 
> > based on the stare I got from the moderator, I'm going to assume 
> that 
> > it wasn't.  I do have to agree, though, that the unfortunate 
choice 
> of 
> > examples could easily lead knowledgeable people astray.  Of 
course, 
> > given the set of askable functional properties, it isn't easy to 
> > narrow the set with just two examples, or to anticipate ways in 
> which 
> > people might misinterpret your intentions.  Frankly, I was helped 
> by 
> > my inability to picture the functions as quickly as they were 
read, 
> > which forced me to wait for the clues which I found useful.
> 
> It *is* difficult to anticipate the way in which 160-odd teams will 
> react to questions and we appreciate the allowances that you make 
for 
> NAQT as it tries to do that.  Nevertheless, we hold ourselves to 
high 
> standards, standards which that question did not meet and we are 
more 
> than willing to admit that.  We will certainly be examining our 
> mathematics questions more closely before the ICT.
> 
> -- R. Robert Hentzel
> President and Chief Technical Officer,
> National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC