Sample test Qs are fun-Not!

[zeedonk]

OK, here's another funky Q- I told our cadet sup that if I saw this on the exam and got it wrong and failed by one point, I was coming after all of them...

- A team is always granted at least one additional time out without penalty at the start of the first overtime period.

True or False?


I said False. Obviously the sup said the answer was True. My logic is that both teams are always granted ONE additional time out, not AT LEAST one- that implies teams could get more than one. The explanation was that yes, teams get one, but they also carry over whatever is left from regulation time. OK, I know that, but how is that relevant to the way the question is asked? What's wrong with the answer that says- False, teams are always granted only one additional time out per extra period, not always at least one!!

We are being told not to "read into the question" too much. I'm seeing a lot of reading into Qs but also a lot of assuming facts that are not in the question? Overall, I am happy with this training program, but the practice tests are starting to piss me off.

I think I'm probably making too much of this, but I'm not sure....? When there are 170 Qs and you need an 86, there ain't a whole lot of room for error, especially for ambiguous questions....

Z

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by zeedonk

OK, here's another funky Q- I told our cadet sup that if I saw this on the exam and got it wrong and failed by one point, I was coming after all of them...

- A team is always granted at least one additional time out without penalty at the start of the first overtime period.

True or False?


I said False. Obviously the sup said the answer was True. My logic is that both teams are always granted ONE additional time out, not AT LEAST one- that implies teams could get more than one. The explanation was that yes, teams get one, but they also carry over whatever is left from regulation time. OK, I know that, but how is that relevant to the way the question is asked? What's wrong with the answer that says- False, teams are always granted only one additional time out per extra period, not always at least one!!

We are being told not to "read into the question" too much. I'm seeing a lot of reading into Qs but also a lot of assuming facts that are not in the question? Overall, I am happy with this training program, but the practice tests are starting to piss me off.

I think I'm probably making too much of this, but I'm not sure....? When there are 170 Qs and you need an 86, there ain't a whole lot of room for error, especially for ambiguous questions....

Z

Terrible question with a terribly incorrect answer, IMO

-Josh

[Mark Padgett]

Based on my (limited) knowledge of grammar, I would have to agree with you. However, the opposing view would hold that at the end of regulation, technically (no pun intended), they lose whatever timeouts they still had but then are "granted" an amount equal to that for the extra period, therefore the use of the term "at least" would be accurate.

However, I would hold that since the extra period is considered an extension of the 4th quarter (all fouls, team fouls, timeouts, etc. carry over), then the already earned timeouts (if any) would not be "granted" for the extra period but do actually "carry over", making the term "at least" inaccurate.

Bottom line - don't expect the NF rule book (or tests, for that matter) to be a shining example of grammar and proper sentence structure.

[bob jenkins]

While I agree the question could be better, "one" is "at least one", so the statement is True.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by zeedonk

My logic is that both teams are always granted ONE additional time out, not AT LEAST one-

If they get one, then by definition they get at least one. I understand that it may muddy the waters to phrase it that way, but technically, it's not incorrect to say it that way.

[grunewar]

Surely they realize we discuss/struggle every yr?! Yes?

Why can't it just say - T/F - Each team is granted one additional time out without penalty at the start of the first overtime period.

Or is that no good too? (I am not mister grammar guy, but I did stay at a Holliday Inn Express last night).

[mdray]

this wording of this question is really bad imho

the use of the word "granted" is misleading...the rule reads "each team is entitled to one additional 60 second time out DURING each extra period" 5-12-1

you can't "grant" this time out "at the start of the OT"...it can only be "granted" after the ball has become live to start the OT ....5-12-4

[archangel]

It may not be any consolation, but the Fed test Q's in Baseball and Football are similar with unusually worded sentences. I'm assuming (lol) the same 2 guys purposely switch things up to cause discussions...

[chartrusepengui]

stupid wording - A team isn't "granted" a timeout unless they request it first.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

stupid wording - A team isn't "granted" a timeout unless they request it first.

Allocated is a more proper term, yes?

This Q is interesting b/c the vets can have a conversation around it.

Logic and grammar pundits note that the Q is technically true.

Newbies will likely get confused. I know that I did/would be.

I don't think the Q is constructive.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Why does the NF write the questions in this manner?

IAABO exams are probably as bad, if not worse. Why can't they pay a high school English teacher to sit down with the committee to go over the final draft?

[zeedonk]

You all should know that our cadet sup drafted the question, it wasn't taken from a past IAABO exam.

Most of the responses were voiced at some point during our discussion in class, and there were many differing opinions. I suppose that I am beginning to get very worried about the structure of the questions if this is any example of what to look for in November...

I have some old refresher exams and prior IAABO tests to review and I hope to not see a lot of this type of problem. It's not so much improper grammar, but the language is just plain confusing... we are told not to "read into" the question, just deal with what it says, yet on at least 3 questions last week, we were told that we were to use certain assumptions in answering the questions, yet there is no indication of assuming anything in the question...

I don't want to beat this to death (lots of folks have passed the exam who are above and below my level of schooling), but I think its a problem...

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by zeedonk

I think I'm probably making too much of this, but I'm not sure....? When there are 170 Qs and you need an 86, there ain't a whole lot of room for error, especially for ambiguous questions....

Z

Is that true? You only need an 86 out of 170 to pass the Officials test? And it's open book? But I can't drag out the rule book during a game?


FWIW, I agree that question is vacillatingly written.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Is that true? You only need an 86 out of 170 to pass the Officials test? And it's open book? But I can't drag out the rule book during a game?


FWIW, I agree that question is vacillatingly written.

CoachP - what do you need to score on your annual exam to become a coach and maintain your certification?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If they get one, then by definition they get at least one. I understand that it may muddy the waters to phrase it that way, but technically, it's not incorrect to say it that way.

While "exactly one" exists in the domain of "at least one", they are far from being equivalent. There are an infinite number of, well numbers, that are at least one. "Exactly one" is only one of them. I have to agree with Zeedonk. The answer to the question, as written, is false.

By the way, suppose the IRS changed the 1040 to indicate your tax liability was "at least" the amount on line whatever. Imagine the uproar