A bat and a ball cost $1.10 together, and the bat by itself costs $1.00 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?
Did you arrive at 10 cents? If so, you would be wrong. Because if the bat is $1.00 and the ball 10cents, the bat would be 90cents more than the ball. The bat needs to be $1.00 more than the ball.
Here’s the solution:
Solving the problem. Set out what you know.
ball + bat =1.10
What is the price of the bat? $1 more than the ball. So the price of the bat is (ball+1.00). Now replace ‘bat’ in the formula above with (ball+1.00).
ball + (ball + 1.00) = 1.10
take out the brackets
ball + ball + 1.00 = 1.10 or 2balls + 1.00 = 1.10
And if you know a little about algebra
2balls = 1.10 – 1.00
2balls = 0.10
And therefor one ball is 0.05
To check your work, the ball is 0.05, and the bat is $1.00 more which gives $1.05. Total price $1.10
What researches say why the bat-and-a-ball problem is significant.
If you answered 10 cents you are inclined to believe in religion.
If you answered 5 cents you are inclined to disbelieve religious things.
Why?
Because, according to research 10 cent answer indicates that you are an intuitive thinker, and the 5 cent answer indicates that you solve problems analytically, rather than following your instincts.
The study of 179 university students showed that people who tend to solve problems more analytically also tended to be religious disbelievers. This was demonstrated by giving the students a series of questions like the one above and then scoring them on the basis of whether they used intuition or analytic logic to reach the answers. Afterward, the researchers surveyed the students on whether or not they held religious beliefs. The results showed that the intuitive thinkers were much more likely to believe in religion.
Professor Terrence Reynolds of the Department of Theology at Georgetown University finds it plausible that analytic thinking could make religious belief more difficult. He said “Religion tends to focus on questions of meaning and value, which may not be available through analytic verification processes… by definition God is a being that transcends the senses.”
What does this say? That it is plausible that if you are deficient in maths and analytical logic then you are more likely to believe in God. Richard Dawkins would call you stupid. However, the evidence is that there are thousands of masters and doctorate individuals that do believe in God. So where is the problem? For myself, I enjoy solving algebraic problems, commenced a computer science degree in my spare time just for fun – so that would make me an agnostic about God. But I missed a crucial step in the bat and ball test and flunked – so that makes me one who more likely believes in God. However what Reynolds says “Religion tends to focus on questions of meaning and value, . . “ is valid. Some people are just not into science and maths and that does not make them idiots. I know many skilled people who are in arts and language careers, don’t have a clue about science and algebra yet are atheists and evolutionists. Non belief in evolution means that you either do not care about that sort of stuff and rely on authorities in your life to inform you, or you have dissected the theory analytically and found it wanting.