I thought of a subway ages ago but the non-human animal clue put me off.
Been a few days, so here is one. Not my top stuff, but here we go anyhow:
Someone asks their neighbor to walk their dog for them that afternoon. The next day, both people change their apartment door locks. Why?
-
Did they somehow discover that their keys could unlock both apartments?
-
Did they somehow lose their keys?
-
Did they somehow temporarily lose possession of their keys (leading to the risk that the keys may have been duplicated)?
-
Did the dog swallow the keys?
-
Is the time of day relevant?
Were any items from either apartment missing after the walk?
Were any items from either apartment destroyed after the walk?
Did the dog’s behavior change in any way after the walk?
[quote=“Lord_Mondegreen, post:1723, topic:790868”]
- Did they somehow discover that their keys could unlock both apartments?
[QUOTE]
Yes. Sorry, this one was not up to snuff.
Sorry, that was just a really lucky guess. Didn’t mean to spoil the fun - I was looking forward to the challenge.
It’s cool, I was just trying to keep this going and I heard that the other day. I can try and look for a better one at a later date.
Don’t know if this will go anywhere, but it is kind of interesting and was new to me…
Because a US President had a hobby, a boy supposedly died near the White House. Anybody know about this?
Does “died” mean the end of life, as in what we typically call “dying” and becoming “dead”?
Yes.
These seem to be a good start, in my mind:
Did the boy die directly because of something the president specifically did?
Did the boy die directly because of something someone helping the president with his hobby did?
Did the boy die directly because of something that those protecting the presidents did?
Did the boy die because of something the president didn’t do (or wasn’t present for)?
Did the boy die because of something someone helping the president with his hobby didn’t do?
Did the boy die because of something those protecting the president didn’t do?
Did the boy die directly because of something the president specifically did?
No
Did the boy die directly because of something someone helping the president with his hobby did?
**No **
Did the boy die directly because of something that those protecting the presidents did?
**No **
Did the boy die because of something the president didn’t do (or wasn’t present for)?
**Yes. **
Did the boy die because of something someone helping the president with his hobby didn’t do?
**No **
Did the boy die because of something those protecting the president didn’t do?
**No **
Is this hobby, when engaged in correctly, dangerous to the hobbyist?
Is this hobby, when engaged in correctly, dangerous to people other than the hobbyist?
Is this hobby, when engaged in incorrectly (e.g., without proper safety precautions), dangerous to the hobbyist?
Is this hobby, when engaged in incorrectly, dangerous to people other than the hobbyist?
Was it widely known that this president engaged in this hobby?
Is it relevant whether it was widely known that the President engaged in this hobby?
Could a similar situation have occurred if the hobbyist were some other famous, respected individual?
Could a similar situation have occurred if the hobbyist had been neither famous nor respected?
Just to try to ferret out any trickery (what, Biotop engage in trickery?):
Was the “US President” the President of the United States? (as opposed, for instance, to a president of a company who happened to be American).
Was the “white house” the Executive Mansion of the United States?
In the phrase “a boy supposedly died near the White House.”:
Did the boy “supposedly” die?
Was the boy “supposedly” near the White House?
Was the boy’s death “supposedly” because of the President’s hobby?
Is this hobby, when engaged in correctly, dangerous to the hobbyist?
No.
Is this hobby, when engaged in correctly, dangerous to people other than the hobbyist?
No.
Is this hobby, when engaged in incorrectly (e.g., without proper safety precautions), dangerous to the hobbyist?
No. I wouldn’t have thought so. But I guess it could be.
Is this hobby, when engaged in incorrectly, dangerous to people other than the hobbyist?
**I wouldn’t have really thought so until I read about the supposed incident(s). It hardly seems risky. **
Was it widely known that this president engaged in this hobby?
**Not sure. I guess people would have had to have known. **
Is it relevant whether it was widely known that the President engaged in this hobby?
No
Could a similar situation have occurred if the hobbyist were some other famous, respected individual?
**Yes **
Could a similar situation have occurred if the hobbyist had been neither famous nor respected?
**Yes. **
Was the hobby napping?
Trickery? Not this time.
Was the “US President” the President of the United States? (as opposed, for instance, to a president of a company who happened to be American).
**Yes **
Was the “white house” the Executive Mansion of the United States?
**Yes **
In the phrase “a boy supposedly died near the White House.”:
Did the boy “supposedly” die?
Yes.
Was the boy “supposedly” near the White House?
**Yes **
Was the boy’s death “supposedly” because of the President’s hobby?
Yes.
No.
Is the hobby golfing?
No.