If a giraffe has two eyes, a monkey has two eyes, and an elephant has two eyes, how many eyes do we have?
A) 3
B) 4
C) 1
D) 2
Answers
Parsing and paraphrasing the question,
“If [we agree with the given that]
a [1 each] giraffe has 2 eyes . total 2],
a [1 each] monkey has 2 eyes total 4],
a [1 each] elephant has 2 eyes [. total 6].”
[Wait. What? That’s an incomplete sentence. Is the girafffe’s name “If”, or is this all one sentence with a conditional phrase and a question offset by a comma? Let’s assume the latter.]
[, then h]ow many eyes do we have?
If the word “we” is a token for the type “human”, the answer is 2. This is because we agree with the given that the type “giraffe” has two eyes unless one is missing, as do the types “monkey”, “elephant”, and we would probably concur, by implied extension, that the type “we” is synonymous with the type “human”, which also has 2 eyes. However, the question could be an English translation of a question posed by a cyclops to an audience of cyclops, in which case the answer would be “one”.
If the word “we” is a token for a minimum plural of two instances of the type “human”, a single author and an intended audience of one, then the answer is “0 to 4”. This is because humans generally have between zero and two eyes of the type attributed to the types “giraffe”, “monkey”, and “elephant”. But instances of an instance are not necessarily the same as instances of a type.
However, if “we” includes a single instance of a token of the types “giraffe”, “monkey”, “elephant”, and “human”, then the answer is “0 to 8”.
However, if two instances of the type “human”, one author and one intended audience, are included with one each instance of the types “giraffe”, “monkey”, and “elephant”, then the answer is “0 to 10”.
But the sentence could be an English translation of a question formed by two 20-eyed creatures, and posed to an audience of 20 other 20-eyed creatures, plus one one-eyed creature. In this case, the ambiguity of the question means the answer is between 0 and ~1 trillion, which is something of a flaucinaucinihilipilification.
Additionally, if “we” is ambiguous, then one wonders if “eyes” is also ambiguous. What else could counts for “eyes”: potato eyes, photo eyes, areas around eyes, storm eyes, light-sensing organs, eye-like shapes or openings; conceptual eyes for envisioning futures or perceiving nuanced implications, etc.
When seeeking unambiguous answers, ask unambiguous questions.
Answer:
I LOVE YOU SO MUCH MORE MANY
