There is the implication, since the question was asked, that enough information is presented to get to a solution. Else, why would the question be asked, unless to fool. In which case, he did a fancy equivalent of "it' a prank it's a prank".
There is the implication ... that enough information is presented to get to a solution
In general I agree with you.
HOWEVER, in this case, one of the choices is explicitly "There is not enough information to determine the answer". Given that choice is explicitly presented, it's not a prank. IMO.
> HOWEVER, in this case, one of the choices is explicitly "There is not enough information to determine the answer". Given that choice is explicitly presented, it's not a prank. IMO.
That's an interesting perspective, but can it really be that the correct answer to the question depends on the options one is given? That is, would the same puzzle, with that choice deleted, have a different answer?
I agree. In every puzzle there's an element of complexity requiring some lateral thinking, otherwise it wouldn't be puzzling. Playing with the "conventions of the genre", so to say, in order to defy the reader is fair game.
