This is a self-referential paradox — a classic logic puzzle designed to be tricky. Let’s break it down:
Step-by-step analysis:
How many choices? There are 4 possible answers, so if we pick one randomly, the chance of picking any specific one is 1 in 4 = 25%.
How many answers say “25%”? Two.
That means the probability of randomly choosing an answer that says “25%” is 2 in 4 = 50%.
But if the correct answer is 50%, then only one option says “50%” — which is (c). So the probability of picking it at random is 1 in 4 = 25%, contradicting the idea that 50% is correct.
If the correct answer is 25%, then two options say that — a and d. So the chance of picking one of those at random is 50%, not 25% — again a contradiction.
Similarly, if 60% is correct (only one option), then the chance of picking it randomly is 25%, which again makes it incorrect.
Conclusion:
Any choice leads to a contradiction. This is a self-referential paradox, meaning the question breaks logical consistency. There is no consistent correct answer.
It's actually common practice. See if someone will do the thing they're offering to do. Offering it is a weak case. Doing it makes the case a slam dunk
This is a self-referential paradox — a classic logic puzzle designed to be tricky. Let’s break it down:
Step-by-step analysis:
Conclusion: Any choice leads to a contradiction. This is a self-referential paradox, meaning the question breaks logical consistency. There is no consistent correct answer.