the category was " An App For Teacher" for $2000
the clue was
The frog dissection app is not as icky as its forebears & won an award for this moral type of “science” that doesn’t cause pain
and the response they wanted was
ethical science
That was too vague. I have no idea how you are supposed to be able to figure out that response from the clue given. None of the contestants got it either. More like “guess what phrase we are thinking of” rather than “figure this out from your knowledge”
I don’t like it
At first blush I’d agree, and thought it was odd the teachers on the panel seemed nonplussed as well. But they were referring to a specific app, Frog Dissection, and a specific award, PeTA’s Mark Twain Ethical Science Award (according to the description on the iTunes store).
So, meh. It’s one of those things you’d definitely understand immediately if you were familiar with the source (the app in question and the award it won, in this case), but not something so completely generalized as to be out of left field entirely. It’s quite possible the clue writers thought their specialized contestants, being teachers, would be familiar with it.
I saw that and refrained from shouting out an answer because I was torn between “ethical science” and “cruelty-free science” and suspected that they were looking for some other, more common, term. A Google search turns up 327,000 hits for cruelty-free science and only 35,000 for ethical science.
Maybe once or twice a week, I notice a poorly worded clue that has multiple correct responses, or no correct responses, or the expected response is not correct. I don’t let it bother me as much as I used to. They have to write 305 clues a week. If they louse up two a week, they’re still batting .993.
I’ve noticed that on rare occasions, too. It tends to happen for a topic that I have considerably more knowledge of than the otherwise excellent Jeopardy! researchers. They cannot be specialists, but generalists, and that can lead to errors.
Looks like it is a shameless plug for PETA and their twisted view of what is ethical. Maybe one of the Jeopardy researchers is a PETA supporter and slipped this in. They may also have thought this sort of thing looms as large in the wider world as it does to their little clique.
The phrase “ethical science” (meaning, apparently, science that does not involve experiments on animals, as if that were the only or remotely the most important ethical issue facing science) seems to be a slogan concocted by PETA, as is the app in question. If anything this is a slimier bit of propaganda for not mentioning the organization behind it, and trying to avoid its being tainted by PETA’s dubious reputation.
Yep, he does a fine job. I have caught very few errors from him over the years. I presume he’s saying all that English lit and opera stuff correctly, because I would never know that he isn’t!
But then you can slippery slope this into a “shameless plug” or an “agenda” for anything. Is Jeopardy shilling for the MPAA when they do a category of Oscar Winners? Or for the Baseball Hall of Fame when they do one on great baseball players? I hate PETA as much as the next guy (probably more), but “plug” or “propaganda” seems like a stretch.
I said “ethical science” sitting at home, but I wouldn’t have hit the buzzer on the show because I, too, thought it was too vague and undetermined just what they were looking for. I wouldn’t have risked the money.
Well, the show* IS* taped so it’s possible that they could re-shoot any of his statements and, with a little editing, make it look like he got it right the first time.
So, add to the fact that I’m as skillful as you at qualifying some of his pronunciation, I haven’t seen any errors either.
Returning to the OP’s topic of poorly-worded clues, today’s Jeopardy had another questionable one:
[QUOTE=Alex Trebek]
“Looking like a giant lying down, Cave Hill near Belfast inspired this man in the 1720s”
[/Quote]
The accepted/correct answer was Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver’s Travels (in the sense where inspire means “to cause someone to do something”), but as worded it seems that Lemuel Gulliver, the character inspired by the hill (in the sense where inspire means “to cause something to be created”), would have been equally valid.
I wonder what the judges’ ruling would have been on the latter answer. It depends on how strictly they interpret the word “man”, I guess.
