# Deceptive but Quick Maths Questions for mostly year 7s-9s

Watch
Announcements

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

I'm helping run my school's Maths society/club, for mostly year 7s-9s but also other years. I'm making a quiz with maths questions that appear easy but are actually deceptive, but each question has a 20 second time limit. Does anyone have any suggestion questions / know where I can look for some? Thanks in advance

0

reply

Report

#4

So you want to trick them?

That's not a good way of teaching maths to kids. I actually fully disagree with it. You're teaching them that maths is all about seeing stupid in-obvious things, and that they should second guess every question they are given. You can do deceptive questions, but not like this.

I do have some ideas, but you aren't getting any.

That's not a good way of teaching maths to kids. I actually fully disagree with it. You're teaching them that maths is all about seeing stupid in-obvious things, and that they should second guess every question they are given. You can do deceptive questions, but not like this.

I do have some ideas, but you aren't getting any.

0

reply

Report

#5

(Original post by

So you want to trick them?

That's not a good way of teaching maths to kids. I actually fully disagree with it. You're teaching them that maths is all about seeing stupid in-obvious things, and that they should second guess every question they are given. You can do deceptive questions, but not like this.

I do have some ideas, but you aren't getting any.

**vicvic38**)So you want to trick them?

That's not a good way of teaching maths to kids. I actually fully disagree with it. You're teaching them that maths is all about seeing stupid in-obvious things, and that they should second guess every question they are given. You can do deceptive questions, but not like this.

I do have some ideas, but you aren't getting any.

like the kids just go there for fun and he gives them some fun questions.

1

reply

**vicvic38**)

So you want to trick them?

That's not a good way of teaching maths to kids. I actually fully disagree with it. You're teaching them that maths is all about seeing stupid in-obvious things, and that they should second guess every question they are given. You can do deceptive questions, but not like this.

I do have some ideas, but you aren't getting any.

0

reply

Report

#7

(Original post by

it's for a maths society g

like the kids just go there for fun and he gives them some fun questions.

**P.Ree**)it's for a maths society g

like the kids just go there for fun and he gives them some fun questions.

Wrong. Wrong. WRONG.

He is asking us to help him set up kids to fail.

0

reply

Report

#8

(Original post by

Perhaps I didn't word this correctly, my mistake. The idea is for questions that require a certain amount of thought, as opposed to just jumping straight out to you. What would you propose a suitable type of question would be?

**Tommy Mac**)Perhaps I didn't word this correctly, my mistake. The idea is for questions that require a certain amount of thought, as opposed to just jumping straight out to you. What would you propose a suitable type of question would be?

0

reply

(Original post by

Yeah, but deliberately setting out to deceive the kids in an environment where they can't think about the answers? When doing these sorts of things, they should be given space to realise the nuance of the question at hand themselves. Not 20 seconds and an answer key that goes:

Wrong. Wrong.WRONG.

He is asking us to help him set up kids to fail.

**vicvic38**)Yeah, but deliberately setting out to deceive the kids in an environment where they can't think about the answers? When doing these sorts of things, they should be given space to realise the nuance of the question at hand themselves. Not 20 seconds and an answer key that goes:

Wrong. Wrong.WRONG.

He is asking us to help him set up kids to fail.

The aim is for a bit of mental arithmetic, a few nuanced questions, and a bit of fun with some slightly alternative questions. I appreciate your point, what would you recommend I do in place?

0

reply

(Original post by

Have a look at the UKMT maths challenges. They aren't 'trick' questions, but they'll certainly make people think

**Grade A**)Have a look at the UKMT maths challenges. They aren't 'trick' questions, but they'll certainly make people think

0

reply

Report

#11

(Original post by

I'll have a look, thank you for giving a constructive type of question to look at

**Tommy Mac**)I'll have a look, thank you for giving a constructive type of question to look at

What else do you do in this maths society? Do you host events?

0

reply

Report

#12

**Tommy Mac**)

Perhaps I didn't word this correctly, my mistake. The idea is for questions that require a certain amount of thought, as opposed to just jumping straight out to you. What would you propose a suitable type of question would be?

Andy is looking at Betty. Betty is looking at Chris.

Andy is married, Chris is not married.

Is a married person always looking at an unmarried person? Is there enough information to decide?

I'll let you try to work it out.

Answer:

Spoiler:

The answer is yes! Either Betty is married, or she is not married. If she is not married, then Andy is looking at her, and so our condition is met.

If she is married then Andy looking at her does not fulfil the condition, however Betty looking at Chris does, therefore a married person is always looking at an unmarried person.

Show

The answer is yes! Either Betty is married, or she is not married. If she is not married, then Andy is looking at her, and so our condition is met.

If she is married then Andy looking at her does not fulfil the condition, however Betty looking at Chris does, therefore a married person is always looking at an unmarried person.

When explaining the result, the proof that an irrational number to the power of an irrational number can be rational is a good example of this line of reasoning. That's if they know the laws of indices.

Proof:

Spoiler:

Let

sqrt(2)

x

If x is rational, that's great, our condition is met(it isn't but that is unimportant.) If it isn't rational, we raise it to the power of an irrational number, and it is rational!

Show

Let

sqrt(2)

^{sqrt(2)}= x

x

^{sqrt(2)}=sqrt(2)

^{sqrt(2)*sqrt(2)}= sqrt(2)

^{2}= 2

If x is rational, that's great, our condition is met(it isn't but that is unimportant.) If it isn't rational, we raise it to the power of an irrational number, and it is rational!

0

reply

Report

#13

**Tommy Mac**)

I'll have a look, thank you for giving a constructive type of question to look at

0

reply

(Original post by

Well, disjunctive reasoning questions are fun. Try this one on for size:

Andy is looking at Betty. Betty is looking at Chris.

Andy is married, Chris is not married.

Is a married person always looking at an unmarried person? Is there enough information to decide?

I'll let you try to work it out.

Answer:

When explaining the result, the proof that an irrational number to the power of an irrational number can be rational is a good example of this line of reasoning. That's if they know the laws of indices.

Proof:

**vicvic38**)Well, disjunctive reasoning questions are fun. Try this one on for size:

Andy is looking at Betty. Betty is looking at Chris.

Andy is married, Chris is not married.

Is a married person always looking at an unmarried person? Is there enough information to decide?

I'll let you try to work it out.

Answer:

Spoiler:

The answer is yes! Either Betty is married, or she is not married. If she is not married, then Andy is looking at her, and so our condition is met.

If she is married then Andy looking at her does not fulfil the condition, however Betty looking at Chris does, therefore a married person is always looking at an unmarried person.

Show

The answer is yes! Either Betty is married, or she is not married. If she is not married, then Andy is looking at her, and so our condition is met.

If she is married then Andy looking at her does not fulfil the condition, however Betty looking at Chris does, therefore a married person is always looking at an unmarried person.

When explaining the result, the proof that an irrational number to the power of an irrational number can be rational is a good example of this line of reasoning. That's if they know the laws of indices.

Proof:

Spoiler:

Let

sqrt(2)

x

If x is rational, that's great, our condition is met(it isn't but that is unimportant.) If it isn't rational, we raise it to the power of an irrational number, and it is rational!

Show

Let

sqrt(2)

^{sqrt(2)}= x

x

^{sqrt(2)}=sqrt(2)

^{sqrt(2)*sqrt(2)}= sqrt(2)

^{2}= 2

If x is rational, that's great, our condition is met(it isn't but that is unimportant.) If it isn't rational, we raise it to the power of an irrational number, and it is rational!

0

reply

(Original post by

No problem

What else do you do in this maths society? Do you host events?

**Grade A**)No problem

What else do you do in this maths society? Do you host events?

(We haven't started doing it yet, we've just got to organise some activities and sessions, thought a quiz was good to start off with)

0

reply

Report

#16

(Original post by

I like the idea of the reasoning question, thank you. I'm not too sure about the irrationality proof in a competition context, but Ilike the idea, thank you

**Tommy Mac**)I like the idea of the reasoning question, thank you. I'm not too sure about the irrationality proof in a competition context, but Ilike the idea, thank you

Lewis Carroll (yes the Alice in wonderland bloke) did a long line of logic books with statements where you have to make reasoned conclusions from what is given. He was first and foremost a mathematician with a specialism for formal logic, after all.

0

reply

(Original post by

Its more of a mathematical application of a fairly interesting concept to introduce to them after you've explained it.

Lewis Carroll (yes the Alice in wonderland bloke) did a long line of logic books with statements where you have to make reasoned conclusions from what is given. He was first and foremost a mathematician with a specialism for formal logic, after all.

**vicvic38**)Its more of a mathematical application of a fairly interesting concept to introduce to them after you've explained it.

Lewis Carroll (yes the Alice in wonderland bloke) did a long line of logic books with statements where you have to make reasoned conclusions from what is given. He was first and foremost a mathematician with a specialism for formal logic, after all.

1

reply

Report

#18

diagnosticquestions.com

is pretty good for this (and has a fair number of ukmt questions built into it)

is pretty good for this (and has a fair number of ukmt questions built into it)

1

reply

(Original post by

diagnosticquestions.com

is pretty good for this (and has a fair number of ukmt questions built into it)

**mqb2766**)diagnosticquestions.com

is pretty good for this (and has a fair number of ukmt questions built into it)

0

reply

Report

#20

(Original post by

Ill check it out ty

**Tommy Mac**)Ill check it out ty

* Extension Mathematics (alpha, beta, gamma) by Tony Gardner (OUP)

books are "ready made" topics for years 7 - 9 and with a good set of questions which promote exploring a diverse set of topics

* parallel.org.uk

by Simon Singh sets weekly topics / problems.

0

reply

X

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top