INCREDIBLY SIMPLE BUT DECEPTIVE QUESTION THAT MOST PEOPLE GET WRONG
| spectacular white sandwich chapel | 07/25/17 | | black church building | 07/25/17 | | Charismatic Dog Poop | 07/25/17 | | spectacular white sandwich chapel | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | plum windowlicker gas station | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | spectacular white sandwich chapel | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | razzmatazz base puppy | 07/25/17 | | black church building | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | Azure maniacal hall | 07/25/17 | | Cobalt masturbator orchestra pit | 07/25/17 | | sable digit ratio nursing home | 07/25/17 | | spectacular white sandwich chapel | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | Burgundy painfully honest faggotry stead | 07/25/17 | | spectacular white sandwich chapel | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | Umber international law enforcement agency menage | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | spectacular white sandwich chapel | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | aphrodisiac sapphire theater stage new version | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | spectacular white sandwich chapel | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | spectacular white sandwich chapel | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | aphrodisiac sapphire theater stage new version | 07/25/17 | | aphrodisiac sapphire theater stage new version | 07/25/17 | | aphrodisiac sapphire theater stage new version | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | cerebral vengeful trailer park | 07/25/17 | | spectacular white sandwich chapel | 07/25/17 | | iridescent den nibblets | 07/25/17 | | sable digit ratio nursing home | 07/25/17 | | Burgundy painfully honest faggotry stead | 07/25/17 | | Effete primrose native codepig | 07/25/17 | | ungodly overrated genital piercing office | 07/25/17 | | aphrodisiac sapphire theater stage new version | 07/25/17 | | disturbing theatre headpube | 07/25/17 | | aphrodisiac sapphire theater stage new version | 07/25/17 | | aggressive pozpig range | 07/25/17 | | Effete primrose native codepig | 07/25/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 25th, 2017 11:49 AM Author: spectacular white sandwich chapel
(1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the
ball. How much does the ball cost?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684406&forum_id=2#33850905) |
Date: July 25th, 2017 11:51 AM Author: black church building
Bat $1.05
Ball $.05
Duh
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684406&forum_id=2#33850920) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 11:52 AM Author: spectacular white sandwich chapel
Though intuitive, this answer is wrong, as a bit of reflection
shows. If the ball costs ten cents and the bat costs one dollar more, the bat
must cost $1.10. Adding those two figures together, the total cost of the bat
and ball would be $1.20, not $1.10. Therefore, the correct answer is five
cents—the ball costs five cents, the bat costs $1.05, and together they cost
$1.10
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684406&forum_id=2#33850930) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 11:59 AM Author: black church building
Cr
Ball is X
Bat is (X + 1.00)
X + (X + 1.00) = 1.10
2x + 1.00 = 1.10
2X =. 10
X =. 05
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684406&forum_id=2#33850990)
|
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:15 PM Author: spectacular white sandwich chapel
A plumber had a dispute with a homeowner about the amount owed on a plumbing job. The homeowner paid what the plumber demanded, but the plumber believed that the homeowner stole his drill as a way to get back at him.
One night, the plumber entered the homeowner’s house without permission to retrieve his drill. The plumber found a drill, but quickly realized that it was not his. The plumber then left without taking anything, locking the door behind him.
Is the plumber guilty of burglary?
(A) No, because the plumber did not take anything.
(B) No, because the plumber made a reasonable mistake of fact.
(C) Yes, because larceny is a felony.
(D) Yes, because he entered the dwelling of another without permission.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684406&forum_id=2#33851118) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:22 PM Author: spectacular white sandwich chapel
A man sued a railroad for personal injuries suffered when his car was struck by a train at an unguarded crossing. A major issue is whether the train sounded its whistle before arriving at the crossing. The railroad has offered the testimony of a resident who has lived near the crossing for 15 years. Although she was not present on the occasion in question, she will testify that, whenever she is home, the train always sounds its whistle before arriving at the crossing. Is the resident’s testimony admissible?
(A) No, due to the resident’s lack of personal knowledge regarding the incident in question.
(B) No, because habit evidence is limited to the conduct of persons, not businesses.
(C) Yes, as evidence of a routine practice.
(D) Yes, as a summary of her present sense impressions
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684406&forum_id=2#33851184) |
|
Date: July 25th, 2017 12:29 PM Author: spectacular white sandwich chapel
A woman borrowed $800,000 from a bank and gave the bank a note for that amount secured by a mortgage on her farm. Several years later, at a time when the woman still owed the bank $750,000 on the mortgage loan, she sold the farm to a man for $900,000. The man paid the woman $150,000 in cash and specifically assumed the mortgage note. The bank received notice of this transaction and elected not to exer-cise the optional due-on-sale clause in the mortgage. Without informing the man, the bank later released the woman from any further personal liability on the note. After he had owned the farm for a number of years, the man defaulted on the loan. The bank properly accelerated the loan, and the farm was eventually sold at a foreclosure sale for $500,000. Because there was still $600,000 owing on the note, the bank sued the man for the $100,000 deficiency. Is the man liable to the bank for the deficiency?
(A) No, because the woman would have still been primarily liable for payment, but the bank had released her from personal liability.
(B) No, because the bank’s release of the woman from per-sonal liability also released the man.
(C) Yes, because the bank’s release of the woman consti-tuted a clogging of the equity of redemption.
(D) Yes, because the man’s personal liability on the note was not affected by the bank’s release of the woman.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3684406&forum_id=2#33851249) |
|
|