I agree with 0% but disagree there’s any paradox - every choice is just plain old wrong. Each choice cannot be correct because no percentage reflects the chance of picking that number.
Ordinarily we’d assume the chance is 25% because in most tests there’s only one right choice. But this one evidently could have more than one right choice, if the choice stated twice was correct - which it isn’t. So there’s no basis for supposing that 25% is correct here, which causes the whole paradox to unravel.
Now replace 60% with 0%. Maybe that would count as a proper paradox. But I’d still say not really, the answer is 0% - it’s just wrong in the hypothetical situation posed by the question rather than the actual question.
Completely agree! In this case there is no real paradox, 0% is a perfectly consistent answer.
I think if you replace 60% with 0%, you’d get a proper paradox, because now there is a non-zero chance of picking 0% and it’s no longer consistent with itself. It’s similar to the “This statement is false” paradox, where by assuming something is true, it makes it false and vice versa.
I agree with 0% but disagree there’s any paradox - every choice is just plain old wrong. Each choice cannot be correct because no percentage reflects the chance of picking that number.
Ordinarily we’d assume the chance is 25% because in most tests there’s only one right choice. But this one evidently could have more than one right choice, if the choice stated twice was correct - which it isn’t. So there’s no basis for supposing that 25% is correct here, which causes the whole paradox to unravel.
Now replace 60% with 0%. Maybe that would count as a proper paradox. But I’d still say not really, the answer is 0% - it’s just wrong in the hypothetical situation posed by the question rather than the actual question.
Completely agree! In this case there is no real paradox, 0% is a perfectly consistent answer.
I think if you replace 60% with 0%, you’d get a proper paradox, because now there is a non-zero chance of picking 0% and it’s no longer consistent with itself. It’s similar to the “This statement is false” paradox, where by assuming something is true, it makes it false and vice versa.