I didn't see this discussed anywhere, so I'll bite. This is in refernce to the "life existed approx. how many years ago?" question on Thursday's Millionaire.
Let me preface this by saying I agree that OF THE CHOICES OFFERED, Answer B (4 billion years) is the best answer. And no I don't think they need to bring anybody back for a second chance, nor will they.
But I can't really fault Olmstead with his reasoning of thinking that if 4 billion years was the age of the Earth, and life didn't come into existence the moment after the crust cooled, that logically he chose the next best answer.
My partner was convinced ABC made an error, so I did some research and found that scientists have found evidence of life about 3,850 million years ago. Said another way, this is 3.85 billion years. So "4 billion years" was the "approximate" answer.
My problem with this is not in the question, but in the choices. I know that 3.85 billion years is "close" enough to 4 billion that it makes (B) the best answer. But jeez, we're talking a lag-time here of 150 MILLION YEARS. I suppose as far as scientists go, you can say 4 billion years is approximate enough. But that extra 150 million years that they just "rounded up" would be enough to fool most anybody.
If the choices has instead been more accurate, such as:
a) 5.2 billion years,
b) 3.8 billion years,
c) 2.6 billion years, and
d) 1.4 billion years,
I think we would have ended up with a correct answer. Kevin would have reasoned that the Earth is 4 billion years old, and chose the next best option. Perhaps not, but based on his reasoning, I'm betting he would have. My issue is that scientists believe that Earth is about 4 billion years old, so by asking a question where you also allow 4 billion years to be the "approx" date of life forming, it makes it sound as though the 2 occurred simultaneously. But they didn't...one happened 150 million years after the other.
I suppose I just have a problem with the fact that Kevin got bamboozled in his thinking by the "rounding" of the question writer who made up the choices. Is (B) the best answer of the available choices? Yes. But could the answers have been written better? Yes, IMO. I don't like having a "right" answer that is a whole freakin' 150 million years off.
I know I'll have my detractors. Fire away. I'm not upset about it so much as I am just disappointed that Kevin's astute reasoning seemed to work against him.
And please remember when posting: I do concur that (B) is indeed the "best" answer...of what they offered.
-Brent