Back to the Test - #47

[HawkeyeCubP]

Alright, I don't think I'm going to get much support on this one, but it's the only question I took issue with, regarding my results.

47. The referee may not permit a game to continue if either team has only one participating player.

I marked this TRUE, as I assert, because of its use of the word "may" and not the word "shall," this statement, and all of its elements, within the confines of 3-1-Note, are true.

Disprove my logic and set me straight.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Alright, I don't think I'm going to get much support on this one, but it's the only question I took issue with, regarding my results.

47. The referee may not permit a game to continue if either team has only one participating player.

I marked this TRUE, as I assert, because of its use of the word "may" and not the word "shall," this statement, and all of its elements, within the confines of 3-1-Note, are true.

Set me straight.

You expected proper grammar on a FED test and then read too much into the question.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

You expected proper grammar on a FED test

I appreciate your sentiment of my having (apparently somewhat unreasonable) high expecatations for the test, and acknowledgement of the rationale behind my answer.

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

and then read too much into the question.

See, I just can't get past this though. I don't feel that I read too much into the question for this reason: The NFHS Rule Book uses the word "may" over 120 times as a modal verb carrying a meaning of possibility; The NFHS Rule Book uses the work "shall" over 200 times as a modal verb carrying a meaning of certainty. When I see either of these words in a test question in any of the sports I officiate, I don't treat them lightly, for the reason that they are commonly used to convey one of those to very different connotations.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

I appreciate your sentiment of my having (apparently somewhat unreasonable) high expecatations for the test, and acknowledgement of the rationale behind my answer.

See, I just can't get past this though. I don't feel that I read too much into the question for this reason: The NFHS Rule Book uses the word "may" over 120 times as a modal verb carrying a meaning of possibility; The NFHS Rule Book uses the work "shall" over 200 times as a modal verb carrying a meaning of certainty. When I see either of these words in a test question in any of the sports I officiate, I don't treat them lightly, for the reason that they are commonly used to convey one of those to very different connotations.

so now that you've seen my post about "maynot" do you understand better?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

so now that you've seen my post about "maynot" do you understand better?

Yep. I get it Rainmaker. But it's another of those possible question interpretations that went completely unnoticed in the dank, dark Fed test-writing dungeon - one that could've been avoided by the use of a much better-suited word/phrase.

[tjones1]

Incorrect. It's incorrect because if the team with only one player is winning or the referee feels they have a chance to win, the game continues. It's not automatic if the team only has one player.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Incorrect. It's incorrect because if the team with only one player is winning or the referee feels they have a chance to win, the game continues.

What's incorrect? My answer, my logic, the test question, or the wording of the test question? Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

Originally Posted by tjones1

It's not automatic if the team only has one player.

I know it's not automatic. Hence the acceptable use of the term "may."

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

What's incorrect?
I know it's not automatic. Hence the acceptable use of the term "may."

Your answer, sorry for the confusion.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Your answer, sorry for the confusion.

Tanner, the question is also incorrect. If it were correct, then the answer would be true, and Hawk would be correct. Isn't logic fun!!

[rainmaker]

Hawk -- In terms of grammar (I'm really not bucking for a promotion here!), "may" isn't the operative term, but rather "may not". The question isn't saying he might decide to not allow the game to continue, it's saying he's absolutely not allowed to let the game continue. See?

[tjones1]

Well if his answer was true and it was incorrect. That would make the question incorrect as well. Kind of like, the transitive property: if a=b, b=c, then a=c.

[Mwanr1]

WTF????

This is weird. To answer your question, the answer is True - as the official may or may/not permit the game to......

If it is "shall," then it is incorrect as there's still a posibility that the team with one player can win the game, thus forfeiting the game is incorrect.

Think of A being up by 10 with 5 seconds left. Will you still forfeit the game because they have a chance to win?