MovieChat Forums > Exam (2010) Discussion > The Explanation

The Explanation

posted 10 years ago by calbruin2
26 replies | jump to latest

Here is posited an explanation concerning the most discussed topic of the movie, what was 'the question' for which 'No' is the answer.

There are many theories that borrow knowledge or assumptions from outside the movie. Any valid explanation must be contained and consistent with the text of the mo movie. Before starting, let's review the relevant dialogue.

The Invigilator's speech

INVIGILATOR
I am the Invigilator. Listen
carefully to every word I say. There will be no repetition.
I won’t apologize for the hardships you’ve endured to reach this room because the pressures and pains were necessary.
Resilience is a key attribute in
these troubled times and if you can’t survive our selection process you won’t survive in the job. Many highly-qualified candidates tried to get this far and failed. You have succeeded -- and now the final stage lies before you. One last hurdle separates you from your goal: which is to join our esteemed ranks.
The test is simple by comparison, yet it will determine who leaves this room with a contract of employment and who leaves... with the bus fare home.
(reaction shot)
Through your trials you have
gained some idea of the power of this organization, so believe me when I tell you that there is no law in this place but our law. And the only rules in here are our rules.
There is one question before you,
and one answer is required. If you attempt to communicate with myself or the guard, you will be disqualified. If you spoil your paper, intentionally or accidentally, you will be disqualified. If you choose to leave the room for any reason, you will be disqualified.
Any questions?

The candidates remain silent.

Best of luck then, ladies and
gentlemen.
[The Invigilator turns to the digital clock behind him. Two buttons are set into its topside: one red, one white.]
We’re giving the eight of you
eighty minutes.
He presses the red one. The digits 00:00 change to 80:00.

Eighty minutes to convince us you
have what it takes to join us.

[His index finger hovers over the white button...]

Eighty minutes to determine the
next eighty years of your lives.

[presses the button]

Begin.

[The Invigilator turns and strolls out of the room.]

the final scene where the answer is given

CEO/Deaf looks up from the sheet to scrutinize Blonde.

Blonde: (confidently) No.

Quiet satisfaction warms across both the CEO/Deaf's and the Invigilator's faces.

Blonde: (cont'd) That’s the answer you wanted... to the first question asked of us.

Invigilator: To the only question asked of you.

She nods, acknowledging this.

Blonde: I almost missed it too.

INVIGILATOR: Almost. As it is, we’re glad to be hiring someone today.

From the CEO's approval of the Blonde's answer, we are given 'No' as the correct answer. What, however, was the question asked and how does a reply of 'no' answer said question.

Within the whole of the movie, there are only two interrogatives uttered by either the CEO or the Invigilator. (1) the one given in the Invigilator's monologue and (2) the in French babble by CEO/Deaf, "Do you see?"
Not much to work with but let us see what we can conclude.

The problems with "Are there any questions?" from the Invigilator's speech the question.

Seem the most transparently obvious but it were so, there would not much debate and easily answerable. The problem with accepting this possibility lies within the sequence of the text and common experience.
Review, the Invigilator states, "There is one question before you, and one answer is required" well before the line, "Are there any questions?"
If there is any question before them, then there ought to be a question before them. As revealed later in the film, nothing but the microscopic text "Question 1" is imprinted on the seemingly blank piece of white paper before the candidates.
Consensus concludes "Question 1" does not constitute as an interrogative and I would tend to agree. Thus making nothing -- no question before them.

Then there is common experience. For anyone who taken any standardized exam, the proctor prefaces with exam directions, instructions, or conditions. At the conclusion which they ask, "Are there any questions?" Implying "Before actual start of the exam, is everyone clear and understand the exam directions? Has anyone any questions before taking the exam?"

If we are to accept the Invigilator's "Are there any questions?" as the question, then that violates previous experience regarding proctoring protocol. The exam question was given with the litany of exam instructions. I do not know about you but my experience has been a clear separation between exam directions and exam questions.

Then the a real crux of audience uncertainity is how are the candidates suppose to decipher the difference between asked for clarification and being asked the exam question itself? There is nothing in the movie to give explicit, nor implicit, evidence and logical thread that explains how "Are there any questions?" is the exam question itself, other than the backhanded final scene, which behind the scenes knowledges informs us was hastely redone in responses to an unfavourable audience preview screening.
If all that MacGyvering with the broken light bulbs and eyeglasses used in revealing the microscopic text "Question 1" is supposed to define or give answer, then what is the logical thread that we audience can trace to can resolve this much heated debate.

There is the problem of the tacit obedience. Regardless if they had any questions about the exam process itself, their silence response to when the Invigilator asked "Are there any questions?" is tantamount to admitting 'no, they have no questions'. Thus the Invigilator should have accepted their answers then and there. The candidates followed directions, remained silent, and still answered The Question. If that does not qualify them, then why bother?

One final point of contention. The question "Are there any questions?" may be read as asking a measure of quantity as in, 'how many questions are there?' Given the correct answer is 'no' being that there was no question, there is more than one possible answer to the question.
Thus the answers either 'none', 'one', 'two', or the finite count of total number interrogatives contained in the film satisfy that as The Question.
But the candidates are told explicitly there is one answer only.
'None' is equivalent to 'no' in answering "Are there any questions?"

Objection #1
Given the answer and that is the only question asked by the Invigilator in the absence of any alternative, "Are there any questions?" must be The Question.

Rebuttal to objection #1
That is a grasping-at-straws argument. Granted not many questions were asked explicitly by the Invigilator and the CEO, but accepting that explanation employs too much suspension of disbelief. We audience are asked to accept blindly that 'no' is the correct answer to a question we were not given explicitly and thus assuming the only question asked to be The Question is the logical fallacy of accepting the only answer left.
But given the text, we audience have one clear declaration that is The Question indeed. The debate arises becasue there is no logical connexion between the answer and how the answer is suppose to have meaning in reply to The Question.

Objection #2
The "there is one question before you…" need not be taken literally. Sometimes 'before you _' is an idiomatic expression that means 'before doing _, you may/must/…'.
Thus The Question can be asked after the statement, "there is one question before you…" without the need for any actual question to be before the candidates.

Rebuttal to objection #2
The problem with that is, in order for the "before you…" to be taken in figurative way, there must be a verb, explicit or otherwise, that defines what is to be done 'before…'. For example, 'before taking the exam, you might want to study up on the material'.
Versus the "before you" in the Invigilator's speech is strictly a prepositional phrase that pinpoints the locality and there is no implied verb suggesting what action(s) the candidates ought to do.

Suppose you construe the meaning by inserting a verbal phrase, such as, 'before you taking the exam, there is one question'. This produces two problems: (1) this presupposes the existence of some question before the exam is to take place and (2) if the exam is answering "Are there any questions" as The Question, then that creates a paradox of taking the exam before the exam is given.

'There is one question before you answer the question…' or 'Before you answers he question , there is one question…'. Even here two problems arise: (1) the reading implies there are two questions open for discussion, the one question that comes before and the question to be answered. (2) The use of 'is' suggests the question is an eternal question e.g. 'is there a god?' versus using a forecasting future tense, "There [will be] one question before you…". I do not know about you, but "are there any questions?" does not strike me as an eternal question even in the context of this film.

Lingering doubts/issues/problems
Did the exam start when the candidates entered the room? Did they know that? Regardless, why have the timer?
Notice how, even after being given the correct answer to The Question, the Invigilator still went ahead and started a timer to what end? Waste 80 minutes of everyone's life?

Conclusion
"Are there any questions?" as evidence from the movie text tells us that is The Question. What we audience dissatifying is how is a question asking of clarifiying is the exam question itself with some explicit indication as such. Being the only question asked is weak at best.
In accepting The Question, the candidates' collective silence should have been sufficient acknowledgment of an answer as verbalizing "No" at the exams end.

[–] markbowyer 10 years ago

I really like your break-down of the lingering dissatisfaction of "the answer," and "the question." The only thing I can say to homogenize a workaround is to say that The Invigilator is standing BEFORE them, meaning in front of and existing as an employee chronologically BEFORE they can, if they answer correctly...and his mind in his body is the direct source of the phrase that will come from his mouth. The fact that there is only one answer from one candidate can be linked to someone either has questions or they don't. If time expires and more than one person remains, it is then the CEO's discretion that takes over since they make all the rules. Since 'Black' was not dead, had he said, "Yes," as the answer, I imagine they could easily say "We don't/do want to hire someone who questions us...etc.

The character qualities brought out by the enigma and the time limit pressure were being watched the whole time...'Blonde' was the most selfless and efficient between herself and 'Black.'

[–] MoviemanCin 9 years ago

You must have been vaccinated with a phonograph needle, Cal.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, and / or doesn't.

[–] mailincognito5 8 years ago

First of all well done on such a structured and detailed post.

From the CEO's approval of the Blonde's answer, we are given 'No' as the correct answer

I'm not convinced that is a valid statement. "the correct answer" implies there is one and only one correct answer. At best I think the CEO/Invigilators apparent approval suggests it was an acceptable answer. It could be one of many correct answers, or it could actually be just close enough. The Invigilator conveniently doesn't confirm/deny Blonde's statement "That's the answer you wanted".

The problems with "Are there any questions?" from the Invigilator's speech the question.

Careful of putting something in quotes that is not a direct quote. As you correctly quoted in the full invigilators opening speech he asks "Any questions?" not "Are there any questions?".
While both are a little vague, "Any questions?" is certainly more vague and could be interpreted in a greater number of ways. I think the most likely interpretation is Does anyone have any questions?.

The problem with accepting this possibility lies within the sequence of the text and common experience.
Review, the Invigilator states, "There is one question before you, and one answer is required" well before the line, "Are there any questions?"

My interpretation of "one question before you" is that you have one question to come. I.e. it's in the future. (akin to you have a task before you. I.e. A task you haven't done yet but need to do). In which case it makes sense that the question is to follow that statement.
The Invigilator also says "and now the final stage lies before you". To me he's clearly referring to the exam which is in their future.

Then there is common experience. For anyone who taken any standardized exam, the proctor prefaces with exam directions, instructions, or conditions. At the conclusion which they ask, "Are there any questions?" Implying "Before actual start of the exam, is everyone clear and understand the exam directions? Has anyone any questions before taking the exam?"

If we are to accept the Invigilator's "Are there any questions?" as the question, then that violates previous experience regarding proctoring protocol. The exam question was given with the litany of exam instructions. I do not know about you but my experience has been a clear separation between exam directions and exam questions.

I really don't think common experience and standardised exams should be considered here at all. We know that the film is set in the future, we know there is a pandemic virus with millions of people dead/dying, we know these are "dark times" (part of the Invigilators opening speech). In short the world the Exam is set in is not the world we live in today. So I don't think applying our common exam experiences to the film is appropriate in this case.
In addition we know the company is very rich and powerful and the Invigiltor says "And the only rules in here are our rules". To me that implies that normal rules are unlikley to apply and that the candidates would do well to forget any rules they think they know.

Then the a real crux of audience uncertainity is how are the candidates suppose to decipher the difference between asked for clarification and being asked the exam question itself?

It's clearly not obvious (by design) but I believe that was the point. The attention to detail that they were looking for.

If all that MacGyvering with the broken light bulbs and eyeglasses used in revealing the microscopic text "Question 1" is supposed to define or give answer, then what is the logical thread that we audience can trace to can resolve this much heated debate.

I interpreted the microscopic text as purely an additional clue and wasn't a critical part of the exam/question.

The question "Are there any questions?" may be read as asking a measure of quantity as in, 'how many questions are there?' Given the correct answer is 'no' being that there was no question, there is more than one possible answer to the question.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that question which leads me back to my first point. One could argue that "No" is an acceptable answer and not necessarily the one and only correct answer. I don't believe there's any evidence that explicitly excludes the possibility of mulitple acceptable answers.

But the candidates are told explicitly there is one answer only.

Who told them that?
The Invigilator said "There is one question before you, and one answer is required". Saying one answer is required is definitely not the same as saying there is only one answer.

Rebuttal to objection #1
That is a grasping-at-straws argument. Granted not many questions were asked explicitly by the Invigilator and the CEO, but accepting that explanation employs too much suspension of disbelief.

I'm not sure what suspension of disbelief is required here. Accepting that the one question that was asked of them just happened to be before the exam timer was started doesn't require you to believe the unbelievable (believing the unfair, maybe). Again it comes back to common experiences that I don't think are applicable here.

We audience are asked to accept blindly that 'no' is the correct answer to a question we were not given explicitly and thus assuming the only question asked to be The Question is the logical fallacy of accepting the only answer left.

1) As stated above I think it's perfectly feasible that "No" is an accepatable answer rather than the one and only answer.
2) It is also possible that the Invigilator/CEO were already happy with what they'd seen of Blonde in the exam and therefore didn't care about any answer she gave.

Rebuttal to objection #2
The problem with that is, in order for the "before you…" to be taken in figurative way, there must be a verb, explicit or otherwise, that defines what is to be done 'before…'. For example, 'before taking the exam, you might want to study up on the material'.

I feel you're getting bogged down in semantics here. The question had to have a certain air of ambiguity. If it was too specific it would have been a very short exam... "Any questions?" is not exactly a fully formed English sentence but it is often used and generally understood.

Lingering doubts/issues/problems
Did the exam start when the candidates entered the room?

Almost certainly, if not before. A job interview begins when you enter the building (you will be judged on how you are dressed, how you introduce yourself etc), not when they ask you the first question.

Did they know that?

It's very unlikely they would have known specifics but given they are all high flyers and have already gone through a grueling selection process so they should know that they are constantly being observed and evaluated.

Regardless, why have the timer?

Partly to give the illusion of a regular exam. Partly to add pressure to the situation and partly because it helps the film flow...

Notice how, even after being given the correct answer to The Question, the Invigilator still went ahead and started a timer to what end? Waste 80 minutes of everyone's life?

I don't think the Invigilitor took the stoney silence response to his question as the correct answer...

Final thoughts:
The Invigilator/CEO are looking to hire someone (potentially more than one) to the company. The candidates are trying to secure a job with the company.
Everything that happens in the film is working towards those objectives.
Irrespective of whether something happened inside or outside the 80 minutes, or even if there was a proper question/answer, ultimately it's irrelevant if the Invigilator/CEO finds the right person for the job.
"there is no law in this place but our law. And the only rules in here are our rules".

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

excuse MY arrogance, but why would anyone find the solution the film gives unsatisfying?

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

Because the answer she 'Blonde' gives does not answer the question we the audience have about what is The Question.

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

i am part of the audience, and i have no further questions about the question. as it was already pointed out, the only further rule set given was: we make the rules. ergo, there is nothing further to question.

while your idea of a non verbal answer by being silent is admittedly clever if you would create your own story, it is redundant given said given "expanded rule set".

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

Ok then. To you, what is "the Question"?
What textual evidence have you that supports your claim?

[–] mailincognito5 8 years ago

From the flashback montage at the end of the film

White: "So has anyone figured out the answer yet?"
Brown: "It's not about the answer. It's about the question."
Brunette: "What is the question?"
Brown: "What is the question?"
Invigilator: "Any questions?"
Blonde: "No. That's the answer you wanted, to the first question asked of us"
Invigilator: "To the only question asked of you"

To me that's clear enough that the Invigilator's "Any questions?" was The Question.

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

Attn. mailincognito5

Before you and I get into a circular discussion, I suggest you re-read in full my explanation. I quote the relevant section, "

The problems with "Are there any questions?" from the Invigilator's speech the question.

Seem the most transparently obvious but it were so, there would not much debate and easily answerable. The problem with accepting this possibility lies within the sequence of the text and common experience.
Review, the Invigilator states, "There is one question before you, and one answer is required" well before the line, "Are there any questions?"
If there is any question before them, then there ought to be a question before them. As revealed later in the film, nothing but the microscopic text "Question 1" is imprinted on the seemingly blank piece of white paper before the candidates.
Consensus concludes "Question 1" does not constitute as an interrogative and I would tend to agree. Thus making nothing -- no question before them.

Then there is common experience. For anyone who taken any standardized exam, the proctor prefaces with exam directions, instructions, or conditions. At the conclusion which they ask, "Are there any questions?" Implying "Before actual start of the exam, is everyone clear and understand the exam directions? Has anyone any questions before taking the exam?"

If we are to accept the Invigilator's "Are there any questions?" as the question, then that violates previous experience regarding proctoring protocol. The exam question was given with the litany of exam instructions. I do not know about you but my experience has been a clear separation between exam directions and exam questions.

Then the a real crux of audience uncertainity is how are the candidates suppose to decipher the difference between asked for clarification and being asked the exam question itself? There is nothing in the movie to give explicit, nor implicit, evidence and logical thread that explains how "Are there any questions?" is the exam question itself, other than the backhanded final scene, which behind the scenes knowledges informs us was hastely redone in responses to an unfavourable audience preview screening.

Then the problem of the tacit silence of the examinees that follows the no talking instructions satisfies the all requirements making everyone should have passed the exam.

[–] mailincognito5 8 years ago

Before you and I get into a circular discussion, I suggest you re-read in full my explanation. I quote the relevant section, "

I believe I responded to pretty much all your comments in an earier post. Did you see it?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258197/board/thread/242391790?d=263661586#263661586

Then the problem of the tacit silence of the examinees that follows the no talking instructions satisfies the all requirements making everyone should have passed the exam.

I disagree with this for two reasons:
1) The Invigilator says "There is one question before you, and one answer is required". To me he's explicitly asking for an answer. I.e. silence does not constitute an answer. And as the Ingilator stated "And the only rules, are our rules" suggests if he's only willing to accept an obvious and clearly audible answer then that's his prerogative.

2) Clearly this is not a conventional exam that is common place in the real world.
What constitutes "passing" the exam?
Answering the question correctly or being offered a job?
I cannot see clear evidence that the former would automatically lead to the latter. To the contrary, "And the only rules, are our rules" (sorry, to go on about it but I think it's an incredibly important line in the film) would suggest they can ignore the exam question and hire everyone or no-one as they saw fit.
Ultimately the exam is a means to test/interview the candidates further to find the right person for their company. Everyone could pass the exam and not be offered a job. Dwelling on whether they should all have passed or not is to miss the point (in my humble opinion).

Anyway, I think I've gone as far as I can in attempting to answer your questions/doubts. Hope they proved of some value/interest.
Thanks for the original post.

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

Attn. mailincognito5:

mailingcognito5 wrote:

I disagree with this for two reasons:
1) The Invigilator says "There is one question before you, and one answer is required". To me he's explicitly asking for an answer. I.e. silence does not constitute an answer. And as the Ingilator stated "And the only rules, are our rules" suggests if he's only willing to accept an obvious and clearly audible answer then that's his prerogative.

You do know are you are describing a paradox? Their silence complies with all given rules, giving an answer while not saying a word. Granted that the Invigilator may not beholden to his own rules, but how is he suppose to accept and not accept their answers? How does know if they have not already given the correct answer? He cannot both accept and reject the answer according to his disregarding of the rules the Invigilator presented.
They gave an answer -- turns out the correct answer, to the sole question asked while obeying the given rules.

mailingcognito5 wrote:

I cannot see clear evidence that the former would automatically lead to the latter. To the contrary, "And the only rules, are our rules" (sorry, to go on about it but I think it's an incredibly important line in the film) would suggest they can ignore the exam question and hire everyone or no-one as they saw fit.
Ultimately the exam is a means to test/interview the candidates further to find the right person for their company. Everyone could pass the exam and not be offered a job.

Which raises other problems, independent of why bother with asking a "question", why go through all such trouble when they will pick and choose independent of skill in answering 'the question'?

Lingering doubts/issues/problems
Did the exam start when the candidates entered the room? Did they know that? Regardless, why have the timer?
Notice how, even after being given the correct answer to The Question, the Invigilator still went ahead and started a timer to what end? Waste 80 minutes of everyone's life?

Seems all rather pointless in the end.

[–] mailincognito5 8 years ago

Seems all rather pointless in the end.

The Invigilator/CEO got a new employee. Blonde got the job she wanted. I got great enjoyment from watching the film. Whichever way I look at it, it doesn't seem pointless to me.

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

Pointless in the world of the movie. They took 80-90 minutes what could have been done in 30 minutes or less. Taking all that extra time was pointless.

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

and now you will be obsession over this for months and months to come. oh sweet irony.

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

Why?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

Attn. mailincognito5:

mailingcognito5 wrote:

I disagree with this for two reasons:
1) The Invigilator says "There is one question before you, and one answer is required". To me he's explicitly asking for an answer. I.e. silence does not constitute an answer. And as the Ingilator stated "And the only rules, are our rules" suggests if he's only willing to accept an obvious and clearly audible answer then that's his prerogative.

I cannot see clear evidence that the former would automatically lead to the latter. To the contrary, "And the only rules, are our rules" (sorry, to go on about it but I think it's an incredibly important line in the film) would suggest they can ignore the exam question and hire everyone or no-one as they saw fit.
Ultimately the exam is a means to test/interview the candidates further to find the right person for their company. Everyone could pass the exam and not be offered a job.

Which raises other problems, independent of why bother with asking a "question", why go through all such trouble when they will pick and choose independent of skill in answering 'the question'?

Lingering doubts/issues/problems
Did the exam start when the candidates entered the room? Did they know that? Regardless, why have the timer?
Notice how, even after being given the correct answer to The Question, the Invigilator still went ahead and started a timer to what end? Waste 80 minutes of everyone's life?

Seems all rather pointless in the end.

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

the thing that you seem to have a problem here, is the term "There is one question before you", which you seem to insist has to be taken literally, instead of metaphorically, which quite frank is your problem.

as for the "Question 1", just like with every exam, that's where you are supposed to write down your answer to question 1. it being so small obviously is to throw people off.

who says, that the test is supposed to be working under the circumstances of common practice?

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

therefdotcom wrote:

you seem to have a problem here, is the term "There is one question before you", which you seem to insist has to be taken literally, instead of metaphorically, which quite frank is your problem.

If only they had taken time to read my original post in full, then they would have realized I had thought of that.

Rebuttal to objection #2
The problem with that is, in order for the "before you…" to be taken in figurative way, there must be a verb, explicit or otherwise, that defines what is to be done 'before…'. For example, 'before taking the exam, you might want to study up on the material'.
Versus the "before you" in the Invigilator's speech is strictly a prepositional phrase that pinpoints the locality and there is no implied verb suggesting what action(s) the candidates ought to do.

Suppose you construe the meaning by inserting a verbal phrase, such as, 'before you taking the exam, there is one question'. This produces two problems: (1) this presupposes the existence of some question before the exam is to take place and (2) if the exam is answering "Are there any questions" as The Question, then that creates a paradox of taking the exam before the exam is given.

'There is one question before you answer the question…' or 'Before you answers he question , there is one question…'. Even here two problems arise: (1) the reading implies there are two questions open for discussion, the one question that comes before and the question to be answered. (2) The use of 'is' suggests the question is an eternal question e.g. 'is there a god?' versus using a forecasting future tense, "There [will be] one question before you…". I do not know about you, but "are there any questions?" does not strike me as an eternal question even in the context of this film.

therefdotcom wrote:

who says, that the test is supposed to be working under the circumstances of common practice?

Then under what idea(s) is one to take any exam, including this one? Where is the textual evidence suggesting abandoning common notion and how does that jive with audience expectations?

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

"any further questions?"

since i am not the one creating the rules, how do i need further evidence and how are you in a position to demand them? especially demanding them from someone who is in said position.

no offense, but this is getting absurd quite fast.

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

You need textual evidence i.e. drawing upon content from the movie only to support your claim(s), that I ask of you.

I am in a position "to demand" because you are replying to my thread.

It is getting absurd because you are not making any meanful argument or contribution to my thread. Unless you have something to claim that I have not already considered and runs contrary to my 'explanation', anyone is at risk of circular discussion.

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

i don't need to do crap, my little friend. you can ask all you want. isn't life ugly? ^^

hahaha. why, because you claim it. now i claim it. it's my thread now. muahahaha.

just looking at this thread, "circular discussion" seems to be your answer to everything, as soon as you are out of arguments, which admittedly seems quite often.

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

Trolling is such work.

[–] therefdotcom 8 years ago

then it's not trolling. ;)

nevertheless, every thread has someone like you. see you back in a couple of months, after you have repeated your "theory" over and over again.

cheers.

[–] calbruin2 8 years ago

Why run away so soon?
This game is fun.
You trolling and I replying.

Well, I if you must go. I shall be around still.

Not that I have any hope of you offering any original contribution. I can repeat what you ignore reading.

[–] HELLOkimmiee 8 years ago

After giving it some thought, I believe the question was in fact "Any questions?"

At first I was interpretating that line as him asking, "Do you have any questions?" To which a number of responses could apply and yes silence could be seen as the group answering no. As in no we do not have any questions.

However, I think the question he is actually asking is are there any questions on the exam. It is obviously asked in a disguising manner and I think that was the point. They wanted to see who could figure it out in a stressful and tumultuous environment.

They're supposed to turn over their papers and see the question. When Blonde finally sees the typed question #1 text, there was no preceding question. So the answer is no. There is no question.

Invigilator: Any questions (on the exam)?
Blonde: No.

None of the candidates could've truly known the answer without finding the text so she's the only one who actually figured it out. When White said there was no question he was technically right but he hadn't actually figured it out which is why I don't think it counted and why silence didn't count. You had to actually see that there was no question after question #1 text to definitively say there was no question.