You know how there are certain people that you can NEVER remember, no matter how many quizzes you take? Mine are Steve Buscemi and John Steinbeck. Crap.
I can believe you about John Steinbeck, but you clearly have learned Steve Buscemi's name, or you would have said "that guy from Boardwalk Empire and Ghost World" instead. :P
Read Steinbeck! I cannot believe you could forget The Grapes Of Wrath or who wrote it if you sat down and read it--they are not long books. And so relevant to live in the post Bush/Cheney world.
now there’s a stupid rule that you can only learn about British writers at GCSE, in case the Americans steal our literature. no more steinbeck for them
It is the same analogy as what we call north America. North America is the USA and Canada. The combination of Haiti and the Dominican Republic are called Hispaniola.
For some reason the clavicle one seems odd. Not wrong, but for some reason I would've expected the clue to be Clavicle : Collar Bone :: Patella : _____.
Except there's no (evident) relationship between them like there is between all the other cases. While the answer is still discernible, it's nevertheless poorly constructed. The problem is the very structure is different for this one. The rest are "A related to B, as C related to D", whereas this one is "A related to C, as B is related to D", meaning clavicle (technical term) to collar bone (colloquial term) like patella to kneecap. Pairing the technical terms on one side and the colloquial ones on the other doesn't make much sense, as it implies a different relation between them than the already existing one of their names; and also it diverges from the pattern that all other entries follow.
Analogies are basically definitions. That's why this doesn't work. You would never have both clavicle/collarbone and patella in the same definition. This should be changed. Clavicle is to collarbone as patella is to ____.
I always enjoyed these analogy quizzes since they really test your mental ability to relate things. I've been pronouncing badminton wrong my whole life. I never knew there was another in the middle of it. Learn something new everyday.
Hmm. I got the answer without difficulty, but it's the only one that works like that, and I think it's fair to say it doesn't really follow the logic of how the question is phrased ("a is to b as x is to y").
You didn't like it in History Analogies #1 when a user complained about the relationship between the comparators in two limbs of an analogy (Bard : Shakespeare :: Iron Lady : Thatcher--"How could you liken Shakespeare to Thatcher?!"). I agreed with you, because it's a bad analogy to be required to analogize the (irrelevant) comparators, and I said why in the comments on this quiz. What is important in an analogy is to apply the mapping from one comparator to another.
How would you, in words, articulate the mapping from clavicle to patella? To do so in a way that means that only the patella is so related to the clavicle (and not, say, another posterior bone) results in a tortured and inelegant statement (bone count? distance?). That's why it's a less entertaining analogy. I don't see why a bears a different relationship to the collarbone than does the kneecap, for example.
Quite ridiculous to equate Holmes' ability to play the violin with Shankar who was a genius on the Sitar. Why pick Holmes when there are so many non-fictional great violinists that you could have chosen?
In New Zealand, so many sports teams are named for the colour black (All Blacks = rugby, Tall Blacks = basketball, Black Caps = cricket), the national badminton team decided to call themselves the Black Cocks for a laugh!!
Im assuming Romaine is a type of Lettuce and Hass is a type of Avocado, but I didn't know this. I did know that Romain drove for Haas, and didn't pick up on the differences in spelling. I could not figure out what F1 had to do with salad.
It's not a great analogy, because the kneecap is no part of the clavicle, it's just a bone, body part, a thing that's sort of south of the collarbone. It would be improved if it were "clavicle : collarbone :: patella : kneecap".
Should be
Clavicle is to Collar Bone as Patella is to Kneecap.
How would you, in words, articulate the mapping from clavicle to patella? To do so in a way that means that only the patella is so related to the clavicle (and not, say, another posterior bone) results in a tortured and inelegant statement (bone count? distance?). That's why it's a less entertaining analogy. I don't see why a bears a different relationship to the collarbone than does the kneecap, for example.
get it done by half past two........
if half past two cannot be done.....
get it done by half past one.......
that's going back some 60+ years !!!