Comment by Dylan16807
3 years ago
You seriously don't think some clarity could have helped? Like, if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay, you think the quiz wouldn't have more consistent answers?
Or maybe the rule was only supposed to be for things with motors/engines and after clarifying instantly 2/3 of the questions are an easy objective "allowed".
You can't fix subjectivity, but you can reduce it, and this quiz is based on super low hanging fruit.
> if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay
The quizz would have asked questions about the new edge-cases (created by the additional examples).
And those new edge cases would be much less important and more obscure.
The people just trying to follow the law would have a much easier time.
Oh, in this case, sure -- but I think it's a great teaching tool in getting people to understand the difficulty in other cases, and perhaps more importantly, understanding that these things are not solvable and that the essence of the very purpose of law is to have a method to get through these "not fully solvable" things.