Page 10 | Maths question - Civil Service is wrong (we now have 100% more threads about the subject)

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 2025-08-02T12:36:13+00:00

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

Merryoldgoat · 03/08/2025 11:04

@Samscaff no - you’re forgetting you need to increase by 690% which is a mince pie.

Samscaff · 03/08/2025 11:04

niadainud · 03/08/2025 09:36

all you sheep can keep harping on about it being 125 % it won’t change the fact you are wrong and the glaringly obvious exclusion of this even being an option to pick says it all.

Are you by any chance also a conspiracy theorist? 🤔

Show quote history

Obviously the newspaper was printed on the grassy knoll, and carries an article showing that the shadows prove the moon landing was faked.

Samscaff · 03/08/2025 10:57

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 03/08/2025 10:55

Green was not an option so you should've realised that they want you to answer as if it was a solar eclipse which would make the answer yellow.

Show quote history

Actually, the answer is clearly 42.

niadainud · 03/08/2025 10:56

Merryoldgoat · 03/08/2025 10:51

It can’t be anything other than green because there was a full moon when Y1 ended and Venus was in Capricorn.

Show quote history

Ah, but on July 7th Uranus entered Virgo, so the answer is quite clearly two hedgehogs.

Merryoldgoat · 03/08/2025 10:56

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 03/08/2025 10:55

Green was not an option so you should've realised that they want you to answer as if it was a solar eclipse which would make the answer yellow.

Show quote history

AS THE QUESTION CLEARLY STATES

Original poster

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 03/08/2025 10:55

Merryoldgoat · 03/08/2025 10:51

It can’t be anything other than green because there was a full moon when Y1 ended and Venus was in Capricorn.

Show quote history

Green was not an option so you should've realised that they want you to answer as if it was a solar eclipse which would make the answer yellow.

OP posts:

Samscaff · 03/08/2025 10:55

@Spiderbitebatbite

I will try one last time.

Trebling a number DOES NOT INCREASE IT BY 300%! (And in any case the trebling result is reduced by a quarter before we reach the final figure.)

Making a number 3 times bigger IS NOT THE SAME THING AS INCREASING IT BY 300%!

Do you not accept that IF YOU DOUBLE A NUMBER, e.g. your salary rises from £30k to £60k, that is an INCREASE OF 100%, NOT 200%?

There, my frustration that you keep getting this wrong and ignoring those pointing out your error has made me break the principles of a lifetime and use CAPITALS AND BOLD AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!

I'm done. Continue ignoring this basic mathematical point if you want to, but you are making yourself look very very silly.

Merryoldgoat · 03/08/2025 10:51

Hollowvoice · 03/08/2025 10:48

Oh come on now. It can't possibly be blue. I think you've forgotten about the reduction in year 3.
Once you deduct that from year 1, divide the increase from year 2 into 4, double it and take away the number you first thought of, It's obviously purple.

Show quote history

It can’t be anything other than green because there was a full moon when Y1 ended and Venus was in Capricorn.

Hollowvoice · 03/08/2025 10:48

SerendipityJane · 03/08/2025 10:43

This far in, how come no one has yet worked out the correct answer ?

Which is, of course, "Blue".

Oh come on now. It can't possibly be blue. I think you've forgotten about the reduction in year 3.
Once you deduct that from year 1, divide the increase from year 2 into 4, double it and take away the number you first thought of, It's obviously purple.

niadainud · 03/08/2025 10:48

Merryoldgoat · 03/08/2025 08:42

I read those workings again and honestly thought I might be having a stroke.

It takes quite a talent to wholly fudge a problem so very comprehensively.

Show quote history

And to be so confident that you're correct!

Also, why does @Spiderbitebatbite keep saying "as the question states" when it doesn't state anything of the sort?

SoSoLong · 03/08/2025 10:47

SerendipityJane · 03/08/2025 10:43

This far in, how come no one has yet worked out the correct answer ?

Which is, of course, "Blue".

It's because we are all sheep who can't think of maths as a creative subject.

Original poster

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 03/08/2025 10:46

NoCommentingFromNowOn · 03/08/2025 10:25

OP, what’s the timeline with this? Days/weeks/months? I ask as it took me five months from interview to starting in one job!

Show quote history

I honestly don’t know. Depends if I get an interview I suppose.

OP posts:

SerendipityJane · 03/08/2025 10:43

This far in, how come no one has yet worked out the correct answer ?

Which is, of course, "Blue".

Original poster

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 03/08/2025 10:42

slightlydistrac · 03/08/2025 09:49

It is ambiguous.

'The next year circulation trebled' - treble what? Is it treble the base figure at the beginning of year one (on which the first year's 100% increase is calculated), or treble the sales being achieved by the end of year one? One can assume they mean the latter, but the wording does not make it clear.

Show quote history

Treble the circulation of the previous year. It’s crystal clear.

OP posts:

Original poster

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 03/08/2025 10:39

Merryoldgoat · 03/08/2025 08:42

I read those workings again and honestly thought I might be having a stroke.

It takes quite a talent to wholly fudge a problem so very comprehensively.

Show quote history

😂😂😂😂

OP posts:

Merryoldgoat · 03/08/2025 10:37

AromanticSpices · 03/08/2025 10:22

I did wonder this... you could argue that maybe if it went from 100 to 200 it doubled, and then trebled by going to 300. It's unlikely - but a possible reading.

So
100 to 200
300
225

However- you would end up with an increase of 25% so that doesn't explain it!

Show quote history

How is that a 25% increase?

NoCommentingFromNowOn · 03/08/2025 10:25

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 02/08/2025 13:44

I think I said a couple of times that I’ll wait to see what happens with the application and then report.

Show quote history

OP, what’s the timeline with this? Days/weeks/months? I ask as it took me five months from interview to starting in one job!

SoSoLong · 03/08/2025 10:23

Treble Increase from 200 to 600 is 400 which represents 300% increase in year 2.

No, it's a 200% increase.

25% decrease in year 3 so 400 minus 25 % is 300 which is an increase of 150% from year 2 starting point of 200.

It's the circulation that decreases (600), not the previous year increase (400). So 600-25% = 450, which is 125% increase on 200.

300% plus 150 % equals 450%

Using your logic with the correct numbers you get 200+125 = 325

But the logic is flawed because you've added (y1 to y2 increase) + (y1 to y3 increase), so you've double counted y1 to y2 increase.

Let's take it out again and see what we get, shall we?
325-200=125
Fancy that!

AromanticSpices · 03/08/2025 10:22

slightlydistrac · 03/08/2025 09:49

It is ambiguous.

'The next year circulation trebled' - treble what? Is it treble the base figure at the beginning of year one (on which the first year's 100% increase is calculated), or treble the sales being achieved by the end of year one? One can assume they mean the latter, but the wording does not make it clear.

Show quote history

I did wonder this... you could argue that maybe if it went from 100 to 200 it doubled, and then trebled by going to 300. It's unlikely - but a possible reading.

So
100 to 200
300
225

However- you would end up with an increase of 25% so that doesn't explain it!

AromanticSpices · 03/08/2025 10:18

Jet2holiday · 03/08/2025 10:03

Another interesting tangent raised by this thread is that, despite troll hunting being prohibited by Mumsnet, sometimes trolling is the most parsimonious explanation. Maybe time to reconsider the rules?

This is "trolling" in the classic sense... of derailing an existing conversation by posting not in good faith.

I think MN "trolling" means the modern sense of just making stuff up, usually in an OP. In those cases you are supposed to report to MN and not say on the thread "this sounds made-up".

There is of course the 3rd sense of "bullying" but that doesn't really apply here.

BrickBiscuit · 03/08/2025 10:17

Jet2holiday · 03/08/2025 10:03

Another interesting tangent raised by this thread is that, despite troll hunting being prohibited by Mumsnet, sometimes trolling is the most parsimonious explanation. Maybe time to reconsider the rules?

I don’t really understand trolling, and can’t always spot it. On another forum, a much more complicated maths question arose. It was not ambiguous, but was admittedly counterintuitive and relied on advanced Bayesian conditional statistics. One poster, under their real name, persisted for - literally - years with the wrong solution. They seemed blind to the obvious flaws in their reasoning. We had a long and friendly correspondence on the thread, and I think they eventually died none the wiser. I am sure they were genuine.

BrickBiscuit · 03/08/2025 10:10

slightlydistrac · 03/08/2025 09:49

It is ambiguous.

'The next year circulation trebled' - treble what? Is it treble the base figure at the beginning of year one (on which the first year's 100% increase is calculated), or treble the sales being achieved by the end of year one? One can assume they mean the latter, but the wording does not make it clear.

Show quote history

The next year the circulation trebled. That’s year 2 in the question. (Start of year 2 figure) x 3.

Last year you got a 20% pay rise, from £10 to £12 an hour. Next year you’re getting a 10% pay rise. Does that take you to £11 an hour?

Jet2holiday · 03/08/2025 10:03

Another interesting tangent raised by this thread is that, despite troll hunting being prohibited by Mumsnet, sometimes trolling is the most parsimonious explanation. Maybe time to reconsider the rules?

niadainud · 03/08/2025 09:50

Spiderbitebatbite · 03/08/2025 01:16

@ItsFineReally with my calculation I do not agree that the question asks you to calculate the start point and end point without also fracturing in the trebling 300% increase in between. This is why the answer must be above 300%.

200 to 600 is a 400 increase in circulation which represents a 300% increase this means the final answer must be above 300%

Next year circulation decreases by 25% so 400-100=300
300 is an increase of 150% from the starting point of 200 so

300% plus 150% is a 450% increase

The correct answer is 450%

Er, "fracturing in"??

WTF does that mean?

slightlydistrac · 03/08/2025 09:49

Sharingaroomtinightthen · 03/08/2025 00:44

It is not ambiguous. It is asking for the percentage increase between the end of year one and the end of year three. It’s very clear.

Show quote history

It is ambiguous.

'The next year circulation trebled' - treble what? Is it treble the base figure at the beginning of year one (on which the first year's 100% increase is calculated), or treble the sales being achieved by the end of year one? One can assume they mean the latter, but the wording does not make it clear.