What is the correct answer to the question?

[FutureGadgetsLab]

A practise English paper for year 6 question. The question was to work out whether something was certain, possible or impossible. So "I may go to Ella's house" is possible, "I am going out" is definite and so on.

The question was "it may rain cats and dogs, if we have a storm"

What would your answer to this question be? I'm convinced the answer book is wrong.

Raining cats and dogs is a very common idiom, genuinely surprised some of you haven't heard of it. Unless English not your first language?

To me its a perfectly straightforward question (and yes, the answer would be that it's possible).

[if] I said to you, "it might rain cats and dogs, if it rains" then surely you'd see it's possible. Possible from a linguistic point of view anyway.

I'd see you thought it was possible - I suspect that is what the question is asking. It's not "is something possible?" it's "does the phrase imply certainty in the mind of the speaker or not?"

Basically, the question is ambiguous, which makes it a stupid question for a grammar test. Presumably, as it's a grammar question, the use of the word 'may' makes it possible whatever follows. But why are they trying to trips students up by including a metaphor? Idiotic.

We don't know the question, it may not be ambiguous to be fair.

I just asked my autistic ds aged 11.

He said impossible because it doesn't rain cats and dogs and it would reply upon a massive tornado picking up cats and dogs on its way to us in the storm and then them falling out of the sky in the rain when it got to us

you did ask!

Robins are territorial

DOH

I was answering as per the question - by using the question

DS has ASD and is a very literal thinker, he most definitely would have put impossible. In fact, I probably would have as well. To me, there are two answers to that question when there shouldn't be. I don't think it's right to leave it open to interpretation unless specifically told that "raining cats and dogs" was being used as an idiom in this instance. Why not put "it may rain heavily, if we have a storm"?

Yep, it seems really unfair to anyone who isn't thinking on the wavelength of the person who wrote the question. You're not testing their knowledge of colloquialisms so why confuse matters.

Possible

No, it's me who should be sorry - wasn't really relevant, was it?!

I was just caught up thinking about language.

I think as a child I would have found the 'trick' of this question quite funny, but only if I wasn't really being tested. It seems unfair on children who worry more.

future it isn't confusing matters, it testing if the children understand the difference between, at a basic level, 'will', 'will not' and 'might' / 'may'.

Literal thinkers need to stop thinking literally and learn the difference. That's what's being tested. The cats and dogs is deliberate because it separates the linguistic meaning of the sentence from a child's knowledge.

I hope that makes sense. The nice bottle of red I opened after the boys bath time seems to have evaporated and spelling's getting a little tricky!

Literal thinkers need to stop thinking literally and learn the difference. That's what's being tested. The cats and dogs is deliberate because it separates the linguistic meaning of the sentence from a child's knowledge.

That's very unfair to people with ASD, as well as literal thinkers in general. It favours one thinking style when in reality each type has pros and cons.

I'm also literal and this has made me cross! The answer is "impossible" because it bloody well is

Had the question been "It may rain heavily later" then that is "possible"

Stupid question.

It isn't unfair. It's life. I'm shit at drawing but didn't complain in art class.

It's not a thinking style. It's learning modality of auxiliary verbs.

There was a poster who mentioned her son (autistic) ignored the language used but talked about fairly complicated pressure systems caused by weather systems. Is that unfair because I'm more apt at logic and the maths behind language, both human and computer code. Of course it isn't.

An exam isn't unfair because someone's mentally unsuited (that isn't supposed to sound disparaging - no one is great at everything) at the subject..

"Literal thinkers need to stop thinking literally"?!!! Ofcourse, that's where we're going wrong. Why did nobody tell us? Don't worry literal thinkers all we have to do is be someone else. Bonza. Here, have my first . Enjoy.

P.s. Don't worry, I know it's not literally a biscuit.

Potatoes the art example is completely different. The question was trying to test if the children understand grammar, not their knowledge of arbitrary phrases.

Had the class been on idioms you would have a point.

It is unfair to have exams testing something like grammar catering only to one thinking style.

It is unfair as a stupid badly worded question like that could equate to failing an exam. At least art is subjective. I can't draw either.

You missed the key bit there FlyingElbows where I said "and learn the difference".

Passing examinations isn't an elusive art. Read, study and practice.

Not be someone else, just answer academically.

Here's my first /grip/. Get it.

Plus what about kids who's first language isn't English?

I said "possible" before reading the official answer, based on the accepted use of "raining cats and dogs" as an idiom and the use of "may". However, I agree it's badly worded - they could have tested precisely the same thing by saying something like "it may rain hard".

I hope I'm not coming across as an arsey tipsy Mn'er but....

Grammar doesn't come down to a thinking style. It's absolute (and that's why I like it). It isnt unfair because that's simply the way it is. The sentence used in the paper means it may rainas as the poster with the son with aspergers explained, it is possible. Her son would smash a geography exam.

The question wasn't worded badly. It was worded cleverly to distinguish between those that understood the point it was testing - modal verbs.

I don't think you can say an exam is unfair because you or your children can't answer it correctly? If so, A level chemistry was so unfair it made me cry. Twice.

augusta but if they said "it may rain hard" then examinees (a word?) would base it on their experience of the physical world and not the grammar in the sentence.

Potatoes

Grammar is definitely absolute. But that question was asking if it was possible - it didn't say "grammatically, is this possible", it just asked if it was possible. That leaves it open to interpretation - possible in what way?

Testing whether you know an idiom in a grammar test is ridiculous, because it discriminates against those with ASDs, people who's first language isn't English, people from English speaking countries that use different colloquialisms.

It doesn't tell you whether they understand grammar, it tells you whether they understand a metaphor, which is not the same thing.

It's not because I can't answer it, there are plenty of questions I can't answer! But the ambiguity has no place in a grammar exam.

herecome, why would examinees base their answer any more on their experience of the physical world with "it may rain heavily" than they would with "it may rain cats and dogs"? Surely they mean the same thing?

I surprised so many haven't heard the expression "raining cats & dogs".

Maybe it's regional?

If you take that out it's much easier.

"It may rain if we have a storm".

No different to saying "It may rain heavily if we have a storm".

I also have aspergers and I think it's a very badly written question tbh. I'm well aware of the idiom, I even use it, but unless the question was clear that you were only to infer the answer from the grammatical structure of the sentence then I too would say impossible.

I agree diddl. It's not regional is it? I'm from London and this expression is as old as the hills . I assume it's commonplace throughout the UK (and other English-speaking countries as shown in the Hindustan Times!
www.hindustantimes.com/photos/punjab/it-rained-cats-and-dogs-in-the-region/photo-e9yzeXDYPm0pEUWPGvxEJK.html)

The question isn't testing to see if people understand the idiom, though I appreciate it must be difficult for those who think literally.