Einstein's Riddle

[Steve]

Making assumptions based on vague statements is not a feature of
"advanced" IQ tests.  Only one IQ test, the Stanford-Binet form L-M, has
been shown to reliably discern among IQ's higher than about 150, and if
this question were on that test, the subject would probably be awarded
extra points if he or she pointed out that this puzzle is unsolvable
without making an assumption. 

-SteveN-
Glossary of Gifted Education:
http://members.aol.com/svennord/ed/GiftedGlossary.htm

Tim Peters wrote:
> 
> [Gregory Jorgensen]
> > The 2% that can solve it must be psychic or deranged. The riddle
> > as posed is not solvable.
> > ...
> > But only four types of pet are mentioned: dogs, birds, cats, horse. We
> > have no evidence that any of the five owns fish.
> >
> > More telling: how many people can't quickly determine that this puzzle is
> > unsolvable?
> 
> It's a std feature of "advanced" IQ tests that the problem stmts are
> intentionally somewhat vague:  part of what they're testing is whether you
> can come up with the most reasonable assumptions necessary to make the
> problem *interesting*.  Since the problem statement here asked "Who owns the
> fish?", and the problem admits of a unique solution if you assume *someone*
> owns a fish, that's a more interesting assumption to make than to complain
> that the question is ill-defined; the ability to fill in gaps reasonably is
> as much a kind of intelligence as the ability to follow chains of reasoning.
> 
> You could cover both cheeks by answering "if anyone owns a fish, it must be
> the German".  Then again, you may prefer to complain that "on the left of"
> doesn't necessarily imply adjacent to; or that the problem statement never
> says that a person who "lives in" a house is also its "owner"; or etc etc.
> 
> reading-a-question-as-trivial-is-best-reserved-for-saints-ly y'rs  - tim