Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Maths question - Civil Service is wrong (we now have 100% more threads about the subject)

434 replies

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 02/08/2025 13:36

When I posted late last night I thought I’d get maybe half a dozen replies confirming the question didn’t have the correct answer and advising whether to tell the Civil Service recruiters. But here we are 1000 posts later.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5384347-maths-test-to-think-civil-service-have-it-wrong

Maths question - Civil Service is wrong (we now have 100% more threads about the subject)
OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
7
AromanticSpices · 21/09/2025 13:56

I fear I may regret bumping this thread, but...
Any update OP @Sharingaroomtinightthen ?

cakeorwine · 17/08/2025 18:42

SerendipityJane · 17/08/2025 13:29

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/shit-thick-internet-users-puzzled-by-not-particularly-hard-maths-question-20160510108729

There was a similar question on The 1% club about people getting one and off a bus. The question was how many people were on after a certain stop.

I forgot to count the driver!!

irregularegular · 14/08/2025 15:27

SerendipityJane · 14/08/2025 15:20

Come work for HMRC, where mistakes happen all the time !

Show quote history

Well they do...

Is it an HMRC specific test? I just saw "civil service"?

SerendipityJane · 14/08/2025 15:20

irregularegular · 14/08/2025 14:46

It's a typo. These things happen all the time.

Come work for HMRC, where mistakes happen all the time !

irregularegular · 14/08/2025 14:46

It's a typo. These things happen all the time.

SerendipityJane · 14/08/2025 14:20

MontyDonsBlueScarf · 14/08/2025 12:54

@SerendipityJane I was referring to the tabloids, not HMRC.

Yes, but "HMRC fuck up" isn't news.

MontyDonsBlueScarf · 14/08/2025 12:54

@SerendipityJane I was referring to the tabloids, not HMRC.

SerendipityJane · 14/08/2025 11:58

MontyDonsBlueScarf · 14/08/2025 11:51

I agree, but that doesn't normally stop them offering an opinion.

Show quote history

I am sure they are looking into it as a matter of urgency. However HMRC is an award winning organisation that has a long history of excellence in the provision of services to the UK public and takes it's responsibilities to all candidates and employees very seriously.

MontyDonsBlueScarf · 14/08/2025 11:51

SerendipityJane · 14/08/2025 09:26

I would imagine that the test is actually administered by a 3rd party (remember there's always room for another snout in the trough). So there's plenty of scope for accountability to be diluted to the point of irrelevance.

Considering this thread is in AIBU and provides an opportunity (if it were needed) to bash the civil service, I am surprised it's been missed by the some tabloids Although admittedly I can't see the readership of the Express, of GBNews viewers grasping the points raised herein.

Show quote history

I agree, but that doesn't normally stop them offering an opinion.

SerendipityJane · 14/08/2025 09:26

EasternStandard · 14/08/2025 09:11

Did you email in the end op?

I would imagine that the test is actually administered by a 3rd party (remember there's always room for another snout in the trough). So there's plenty of scope for accountability to be diluted to the point of irrelevance.

Considering this thread is in AIBU and provides an opportunity (if it were needed) to bash the civil service, I am surprised it's been missed by the some tabloids Although admittedly I can't see the readership of the Express, of GBNews viewers grasping the points raised herein.

EasternStandard · 14/08/2025 09:11

Did you email in the end op?

cakeorwine · 13/08/2025 22:23

miraxxx · 13/08/2025 22:17

I was wrong. I should think twice before I post.

You need to give 200% effort in future Grin

poetryandwine · 13/08/2025 22:19

miraxxx · 13/08/2025 22:17

I was wrong. I should think twice before I post.

No worries. Would that Donald Trump had the same attitude :)

miraxxx · 13/08/2025 22:17

I was wrong. I should think twice before I post.

TeenToTwenties · 13/08/2025 19:38

This is depressing.

If you double the price you increase by 100%.
To get it back to the original you have it which is decrease by 50%.

If you attempt to decrease by more than 100% you are into negatives, thus paying someone to take it away.

Merryoldgoat · 13/08/2025 19:26

miraxxx · 13/08/2025 12:14

Trump has unveiled a number of moves aimed at cutting drug prices in recent months, but he has yet to move the needle on reducing costs – much less slashing them by 1,500%, which is mathematically impossible, experts say.

I would like the experts to expand on this. Yes you can slash prices by 1500%. It simply means that the new price is 1/16 of the original price - whether it is practically possible is one thing, whether is it is mathematically possible is another. A drug which used to cost $16 becomes $1. The only mathematical limit is that you do not want to go into negative numbers which effectively means you paying people to "buy" the drug. Trump should be held accountable for his incredible claims, so should the experts.

Is this a joke? Or just a display of supreme idiocy surpassing the most ludicrous claims already on this thread which I had thought unsurpassable…

niadainud · 13/08/2025 14:56

miraxxx · 13/08/2025 12:14

Trump has unveiled a number of moves aimed at cutting drug prices in recent months, but he has yet to move the needle on reducing costs – much less slashing them by 1,500%, which is mathematically impossible, experts say.

I would like the experts to expand on this. Yes you can slash prices by 1500%. It simply means that the new price is 1/16 of the original price - whether it is practically possible is one thing, whether is it is mathematically possible is another. A drug which used to cost $16 becomes $1. The only mathematical limit is that you do not want to go into negative numbers which effectively means you paying people to "buy" the drug. Trump should be held accountable for his incredible claims, so should the experts.

What??

If you reduced the cost of a drug that was originally $16 it would be $8. If you reduce it by 100% it would now cost $0. So how could reducing it by 1,500% give you a price of $1?!

Original poster
Sharingaroomtinightthen · 13/08/2025 14:46

miraxxx · 13/08/2025 12:14

Trump has unveiled a number of moves aimed at cutting drug prices in recent months, but he has yet to move the needle on reducing costs – much less slashing them by 1,500%, which is mathematically impossible, experts say.

I would like the experts to expand on this. Yes you can slash prices by 1500%. It simply means that the new price is 1/16 of the original price - whether it is practically possible is one thing, whether is it is mathematically possible is another. A drug which used to cost $16 becomes $1. The only mathematical limit is that you do not want to go into negative numbers which effectively means you paying people to "buy" the drug. Trump should be held accountable for his incredible claims, so should the experts.

Something that was £16 and is now £1 is being reduced by 93.75%.

1500% would be you giving a buyer £224 to take it off your hands. Or -224.

OP posts:
BrickBiscuit · 13/08/2025 14:26

miraxxx · 13/08/2025 12:14

Trump has unveiled a number of moves aimed at cutting drug prices in recent months, but he has yet to move the needle on reducing costs – much less slashing them by 1,500%, which is mathematically impossible, experts say.

I would like the experts to expand on this. Yes you can slash prices by 1500%. It simply means that the new price is 1/16 of the original price - whether it is practically possible is one thing, whether is it is mathematically possible is another. A drug which used to cost $16 becomes $1. The only mathematical limit is that you do not want to go into negative numbers which effectively means you paying people to "buy" the drug. Trump should be held accountable for his incredible claims, so should the experts.

But you ARE in negative numbers. Slashing a $16 drug by 1500% makes $-224. You end up paying the customer $224 plus the drug. Slashing it by 100% makes zero. By 50% makes $8. And so on. By 94% makes it about $1.

cakeorwine · 13/08/2025 13:14

miraxxx · 13/08/2025 12:14

Trump has unveiled a number of moves aimed at cutting drug prices in recent months, but he has yet to move the needle on reducing costs – much less slashing them by 1,500%, which is mathematically impossible, experts say.

I would like the experts to expand on this. Yes you can slash prices by 1500%. It simply means that the new price is 1/16 of the original price - whether it is practically possible is one thing, whether is it is mathematically possible is another. A drug which used to cost $16 becomes $1. The only mathematical limit is that you do not want to go into negative numbers which effectively means you paying people to "buy" the drug. Trump should be held accountable for his incredible claims, so should the experts.

What would happen if I reduced prices by 93.75%

To reduce an item by 93.75%, you could work out 93.75% of a price and take it off.

So $16 * 0.9375 = $15.
Then take it off - so $16 - $15 = $1

Which is what you have said is the same as 1/16 of the original price and then said that it's been reduced by 1500%

marcopront · 13/08/2025 13:14

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

marcopront · 13/08/2025 13:14

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

marcopront · 13/08/2025 13:14

miraxxx · 13/08/2025 12:14

Trump has unveiled a number of moves aimed at cutting drug prices in recent months, but he has yet to move the needle on reducing costs – much less slashing them by 1,500%, which is mathematically impossible, experts say.

I would like the experts to expand on this. Yes you can slash prices by 1500%. It simply means that the new price is 1/16 of the original price - whether it is practically possible is one thing, whether is it is mathematically possible is another. A drug which used to cost $16 becomes $1. The only mathematical limit is that you do not want to go into negative numbers which effectively means you paying people to "buy" the drug. Trump should be held accountable for his incredible claims, so should the experts.

Suppose the original price was $50, what is 100% of that price?

poetryandwine · 13/08/2025 12:43

Edit: since you mentioned experts…..

Swipe left for the next trending thread