i feel like the point is that you have to take the uncertainty into consideration. you are gambling on what kind of bear or what kind of man and so the question is, which one, of unspecified danger, would you rather choose?
and so, since there is uncertainty baked in, it’s basically demonstrating that women are, generally, more familiar or wary about the dangers of men than bears (there’s a lot more one could say here, but this is basically the point i wanted to make)
For me it’s just that not answering (because the question is vague) OR asking for clarification are also valid responses.
For example, your rewritten question - between an unspecified man or unspecified bear, which would you choose? - is already more clarifying than the original.
You are specifying that it’s a gamble, so the gamble is part of the question. The original question doesn’t say that, so assuming it’s a gamble is yet another assumption that we would need to make to answer it
i feel like the point is that you have to take the uncertainty into consideration. you are gambling on what kind of bear or what kind of man and so the question is, which one, of unspecified danger, would you rather choose?
and so, since there is uncertainty baked in, it’s basically demonstrating that women are, generally, more familiar or wary about the dangers of men than bears (there’s a lot more one could say here, but this is basically the point i wanted to make)
That’s a fair way to look at it.
For me it’s just that not answering (because the question is vague) OR asking for clarification are also valid responses.
For example, your rewritten question - between an unspecified man or unspecified bear, which would you choose? - is already more clarifying than the original.
You are specifying that it’s a gamble, so the gamble is part of the question. The original question doesn’t say that, so assuming it’s a gamble is yet another assumption that we would need to make to answer it
Deleted