I dunno, I thought it was great. And I don’t see the flub or foul play in the answer.
Biotop said that the green tea was a drink but it wasn’t. It was the letters T, E, and A colored green.
The whole ambiguity of “the” tea is another issue. We assumed that the tea in the morning and tea in general were the same kind of thing.
You could argue that’s on us for assuming, except that…
I think I would have answered the first question at least with a disambiguation.
But…I don’t want to seem like I’m piling on. It was a pretty smart use of “green tea” and “black tea”. And I can’t think of any lateral thinking puzzles.
My complaint is because thinking the green tea was a drink, I was thinking matcha.
Some years ago, there was a terrible fire. It spread extremely quickly and was so intense, it ended up burning all the way down more than one street, destroying quite a few homes and other buildings. Thankfully, the evacuation was very quick and no human lives were lost the night of the fire. Huge relief.
However, just a few days later, 13 people from the area were dead and another 11 were in hospital.
What happened?
Would the people have died / been hospitalized if the fire had not occurred?
Were the deaths / hospitalizations caused by physical injury? Poisoning? Exposure to viruses / bacteria / other disease-causing agents? Exposure to the elements?
Was there anything unusual about the fire? Or just a normal fire, like you might get if you dropped a match in a wooden building or something?
Would it be helpful to know the historical era when this took place? The geographical location?
Was it due to radiation? (If, for example, you’re underselling an atomic bomb getting dropped on a city by talking about one area where, yes, the effects could technically be described in terms of ‘fire’ and ‘more than one street’ — oh, and, uh, people later keeled over, for some reason.)
Nope. Not an atomic bomb or radiation of any kind.
Was it caused by the drinking water?
Poisoning via …
Something they ate?
Drank?
Touched?
Inhaled?
Was the poisonous substance created by a chemical reaction triggered by the fire?
Was it already there, but exposed / uncovered by the fire?
Did the victims have any relevant characteristics in common besides being in the vicinity of the fire?
Was the poisoning due to some material used to put out the fire?
Was it caused by something in the location they were evacuated to?
kkkkkkkkk
Ah so the townsfolk were evacuated to a secondary location where some or all of them were exposed to a poisonous substance.
You also suggest that the poisonous substance was exposed by the fire. Let’s explore this bit:
Was the substance carried to the secondary location by the townsfolk?
Had the fire directly affected the secondary location somehow?
Was the drink in which they consumed the poison alcoholic?
Since you said knowing the historical era would possibly be helpful – would it be plausible for a similar sequence of events to happen today?
**
Yeppers
Would knowing the specific drink be helpful? If so – beer? Wine? Hard liquor?
Would this be unlikely to happen today because:
– People are more aware of the danger and would take steps to avoid it?
– Practices relating to the manufacture / storage / consumption of beverages are different? (E.g., most people no longer brew beer at home.)
– This happened under specific historical circumstances that are unlikely to recur? (E.g., it was during World War II and something about the war is relevant.)
Did they add something to the alcohol that was poisonous?
Was the alcohol poisonous all on its own?
Did they mistake what type of drink they were consuming? As in, they thought they were drinking X, but were actually drinking Y, which was poisonous to humans?
Not sure what your answer was to my questions but I can get the gist from the other clues.
So was a drinks container (i.e. barrel) heated by the fire so that bacteria multiplied to dangerous levels? I know that British style ales were more popular in the US before the 20th century so I guess that these were more dangerous to drink than modern lager if not stored correctly.
No, I just think things are generally safer now. This was in 1875.
yeppers