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.

Definite surely? But I agree that the word "may" means it is badly worded. But it is a certainty that raining cats and dogs is a possibility during a storm (though I'm sure that's not what was meant).

It could certainly be correct that someone thinks it will rain dragons' tongues. They might be insane or live in a world where that happens.

I'm not British but I do this expression and would have understood it in the way a lot of other posters have.
'It's raining cats and dogs' meaning it rains a lot.

So the answer is possible because of the 'MAY'.

I agree that for someone who is very internal, it will look bonkers or if you don;t know the expression.
But in both cases, this exercise would be testing the knowledge of the rule with MAY and the knowledge that 'raining cats and dogs;' is an expression with a specific meaning.

I just explained to ds that the question is based on grammar and not in the actual words. He answered impossible again and then said "no, stop wait, it's possible if they are using cats and dogs as an idiom".

So yes, it can be taught - it seems that it need some to be taught what the emphasis of the question is though so allow those who don't think linguistically to be able to answer.

I've realised people are taking issue with the use of idiom rather than the strange grammar. That's completely U in my book - you can't expect an English exam to avoid the use of idiom. And of course there may be students, with learning difficulties, language difficulties etc who struggle - but that's not a reason to change the test is it?

future

We seem to agree that exams aren't fair.

I think that it's acceptable. I've failed some in my time but never said I expected the paper to be worded differently to take into account my mental peculiarities.

I have a BSc, MA and MSc. That's because I chose the subjects I was good at. I didn't argue that chemisty, art or geog were targeted away from people like me who were poor at the subject.

You've been perfectly pleasant and intelligent (and I hope I have too) but exams are fair but they aren't equal. Your friend's child got the answer wrong because they didn't have a deep enough understanding of the subject.

I take back what I said abut philosophy as they seem to evaluate to logic which would mean a true philosopher would have answered the question correctly anyway.

Anyone claiming the test is unfair or biased need to suck it up and not claim disablism because they didn't pass a test.

Potatoes

I'm not sure if our points are getting crossed - I'm not suggesting everyone should come out with As. Your knowledge of the subject and intelligence should be the difference however - not your disability or difference.

For example, if you understand how grammar works, but the test is written in such a way that someone with ASD struggles to understand what is being asked - that's unfair.

It's the whole reason we have reasonable adjustments, such as readers for dyslexics or rest breaks for children who can't sit through a whole exam.

It's not the same as being crap at a subject. I'm (or I was) crap at P.E, that's not because the subject is unfair it's because I'm not talented in that area.

I do think you've been intelligent and pleasant, it's possible to disagree while both parties not being insulting or ridiculous, a rare thing on the Internet.

"It's not regional is it? I'm from London and this expression is as old as the hills"

Maybe not, I'm from the Midlands. I am also old as the hills

Not really, I'm onlt in my 50s!

I guess some expressions just don't get passed on as much as others-I don't think that this is one that I've used that often & as we're in Germany now, maybe it's not been common parlance for our kids either.

Raining stair rods is unfamiliar to be but I would guess it to mean the same as cats & dogs!

They could have used a nonsense phrase. The fact that this is a common idiom is a red herring. They could have used a phrase such as "The plimple may crendal, if we have a plomp." That would test the knowledge of the grammar.

Or, the children should have been taught to look at the wording of the phrase and not their own opinion of how plausible the phrase is. For example, the phrase "It may rain cats and dogs" might be possible in a fictional universe where it rains animals.

They should be looking at the phrasing anyway. For example, the phrase "I may eat carrots tomorrow" is grammatically possible. Not certain or impossible. But one person might say, well actually it's certain I will eat carrots tomorrow because I already know there are carrots on tomorrow's meal plan. Another might say it's impossible that I'll eat carrots tomorrow, because I'm allergic to carrots and never eat them. In a grammar test the children need to be looking at the actual wording (may, might, will, going to, won't, etc) rather than at what they think is possible or impossible.

Whether it's really important for a year six child to be able to make that distinction is a bit though.

I can see why an ASD child might find the question confusing. But the question wasn't asking "Do you think this statement is possible, impossible or certain?" it's asking "Is this statement expressing something possible, impossible, or certain?"

When I say "It could rain elephants" I am expressing that I believe it's possible. You might think that I'm wrong, and I would be. But me being wrong doesn't change what I'm saying - I'm saying that it is possible.

Yes Bertie! I like the plimple way

Can distinguish the grammar knowledge sans ambiguity (a word I seem to have overused on this thread )

Unless dragon's tongues are partial to a bit of plimple splendide ? I jest, and apologise as I see that early on you acknowledged that the question was stupid.

Bertie the plimple sentence is so much easier to understand! I think the error is in the wording asking "is it possible" rather than "is this grammatically possible".

"It's the whole reason we have reasonable adjustments, such as readers for dyslexics or rest breaks for children who can't sit through a whole exam."

But dyslexic people have issues which means they may take longer but may get the 'correct' answer whereas someone who can't look beyond the idiom will get the wrong answer no matter how long you give them in the exam.

I think the question may very specifically be segregating those who look at the idiom (think logically) and those who look at the grammar and distinguish it from their knowledge of the world - their literal thinking. Without using the idiom the question fails to do so.

Or, the children should have been taught to look at the wording of the phrase and not their own opinion of how plausible the phrase is. For example, the phrase "It may rain cats and dogs" might be possible in a fictional universe where it rains animals

This.
//-----------------

I wasn't entirely honest earlier. I have smashed a nice French Melbec since bathtime but we closed a big deal today so there was champers at the office. I'll be back later but the room's a little spinny

Potatoes

Not necessarily, some spelling errors will be impossible for some dyslexics.

If it were worded differently, (is it grammatically possible), then people with ASD would understand it. And if anyone didn't, it wouldn't be down to their ASD.

Are you saying it's illogical to interpret it literally? I'm not sure I follow. The idiom in itself is illogical, therefore it isn't logical to interpret it as meaning something else.

Bertie, I agree with you on the carrot phrase, but since the phrase in the question cited has both a protasis and apodosis the meaning of its elements DOES make a difference to its certainty/possibility. Consider the difference between "if there is a drought, it may rain" and "if there is a storm, it may rain" and "if there is a rainstorm, it may rain." The first is impossible - a contradiction in terms. The second is possible (you could have a storm without rain, but a storm may involve rain). The third is, in the terms of the question, "certain" (a rainstorm certainly entails rain). However, grammatically all three phrases are identically structured.

I agree that the question is badly worded, since any conditional phrase like this isn't really capable of certainty or uncertainty (unless the question makes clear that what is being asked about is the protasis, not the entire phrase). However, I don't agree that children shouldn't be tested on grammar in questions using challenging phrases/idioms (presuming there are some other questions where weaker candidates can pick up marks).

The thing is that it is a valuable skill to look past the content of a sentence - what you think you're reading - and see the bones or structure of the sentence - the grammar itself.

I have noticed this in the language learning app, Duolingo. Occasionally it will ask you to translate a sentence which is unexpected, like "The mouse eats the cat". It is a trick question in a way, because you see the words which mean cat, mouse, eat, and assume that the cat is eating the mouse. But the program doesn't want you to guess at the meaning because that isn't really understanding what is being said. It wants you to really look and understand that in this case, the action is going from the mouse to the cat which isn't perhaps the way that you would at first assume.

I would imagine, like potatoes says, that this question is indeed attempting to catch out those who are looking at the sentence as a whole and making assumptions based on the content, rather than the structure.

This does translate into real life. For example if you see something written about "Her wife said that she wasn't coming" you might assume it was a typo and meant "His wife". But that assumption might be incorrect and the writer is referring to a lesbian couple. That isn't a brilliant example, I can't think of a good one right now where mix ups can happen in real life but it is a useful skill to have to read things properly and not just go by your first assumption of what is being said.

Bertie I've seen that on Duolingo too! I agree with you, but I think explicitly asking if it is possible and then only meaning grammatically possible is really...wrong. I may be getting stuck on the word possible here, but I think there are better ways of asking the question.

Nobility, it depends if what is being tested is vocabulary or grammar. You're correct that the sentence "If there's a drought, it may rain" is a contradiction in terms.

However, whether or not there's a storm doesn't actually affect the probability that it will rain animals, if they are meaning it in a literal sense. You'd have to say something like "It may rain cats and dogs, if we're in a universe where animals never fall from the sky" if you want a properly impossible contradiction.

In both cases I still think that the phrases are simply factually incorrect - both are still grammatically stating that something is possible.

I think that the question is confusingly written but only when you're coming at the paper as a complete outsider. I know that it's frowned upon to teach to the test but really, a child being prepared for this sort of test includes understanding the kinds of questions which are likely to be asked and being able to interpret what the question is asking rather than what they think the question is asking.

Also, I don't think you've stated/shown exactly how the question was worded? Apologies if I've missed this.

I have to go to work now :)

I do think it discriminates against people with ASD, we are often very good grammatically but get confused by metaphors.

Understanding grammar (may/possible) and English meaning (metaphorical) is probably one of the most essential skills needed for further education and a lot of jobs.

There has to be discrimination. That is what exams are for, but someone with ASD
probably would have extenuating circumstances taken into account together with any exam results.

Someone who could not do this sort of test well would perhaps be doing well in other sorts of exams which would reflect their abilities in other ways.

I may ask my students what they think! (Adult learners of English as a second language.)

Well it depends how the question was phrased. If they highlighted the word may and said, does this connote possibility or certainty then it would be possible to discard meaning. But it appears that the children were expected to comment on the entire phrase. If the question was simply, "If there's a drought, it may rain," then it would be incorrect to answer possible.

"if there is a drought, it may rain" is not a contradiction in terms. "if there is a drought, it is raining" is a contradiction in terms. To my simpleton's understanding anyway. No wonder your poor kids are all stressed out their minds.

I am not a simpleton, I'm not thick and I'm not weak. My mind just simply does not compute this stuff. My mother is an English teacher and gawd luv 'er she tried!

Bertie

I think that the question is confusingly written but only when you're coming at the paper as a complete outsider.

That's a fair point. I haven't got the exact wording to hand but I'll try and grab it next week, I'm curious myself to see it again!

Bertie if you do please update is!