tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8677649049588007585.post2201145421133293541..comments2023-06-18T16:15:22.432+01:00Comments on PL/SQL Challenge: Rescoring performed for 13 August Quiz on INDICES OF BETWEEN (1330)Steven Feuersteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16619706770920320550noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8677649049588007585.post-21794269365555672712010-08-17T20:55:54.833+01:002010-08-17T20:55:54.833+01:00I agree with al0 and jhall62, there was nothing wr...I agree with al0 and jhall62, there was nothing wrong with the question.blogjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14785008192037832811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8677649049588007585.post-70642489710040996322010-08-16T11:15:08.262+01:002010-08-16T11:15:08.262+01:00This quiz, as it was originally presented and scor...This quiz, as it was originally presented and scored, was neither ambiguous nor erroneous. The argument that expressions which are not of type PLS_INTEGER could be used in the BETWEEN clause does not alter the fact that PLS_INTEGER values can be used. This argument is fundamentally the same as one that was presented (and rejected) in response to the recent quiz regarding INSTR. In both cases it is the completeness, not the accuracy, being challenged. The rationale for rejecting the INSTR challenge was that a choice is not incorrect solely for not completely describing a feature. The decision taken for the BETWEEN clause case is inconsistent with that taken for the INSTR case.<br /><br />Rescoring should be reserved for instances where a quiz is ambiguous or contains errors that can reasonably be expected to influence players’ choices. In this case the semantics of the original quiz were clear. The difference between <i>must</i> and <i>can</i> is not one of "linguistic hair-splitting." Ignoring that difference and accepting Sergey P.’s challenge rewards specious argument and diminishes the efforts of those who responded correctly.<br /><br />A choice should be considered correct if it does not contain false statements and does not conflict with the details of the question. Extending this standard to require complete description of the topic feature would make it nearly impossible to formulate meaningful options with other than concrete code examples since players could likely identify some aspect of the feature that was omitted (similar to challenging when an intended correct choice includes "always" or "never" as part of its phrasing).jhall62https://www.blogger.com/profile/10339038131928463003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8677649049588007585.post-33220648681812316472010-08-16T10:09:58.310+01:002010-08-16T10:09:58.310+01:00Thanks, al0. I agree that it was not strictly spea...Thanks, al0. I agree that it was not strictly speaking necessary. I guess I was just in a generous sort of mood - and I don't want players to get caught up in (and possibly discouraged by) linguistic hair-splitting.Steven Feuersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16619706770920320550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8677649049588007585.post-84714700172938688412010-08-16T09:38:50.559+01:002010-08-16T09:38:50.559+01:00To be honest I do not see any reasons for re-scori...To be honest I do not see any reasons for re-scoring here. If the choice would be formulated so "The lower value in the BETWEEN clause can be 1" - would you consider re-scoring in favor of players that would not select it? I doubt so.<br /><br />The choice was absolutely unambiguous, to interpret it as Sergey P. did it shall be written either "... can be any PLS_INTEGER value - and only such values" or "shall be a PLS_INTEGER value, any such value is permitted".al0https://www.blogger.com/profile/15743792964167204705noreply@blogger.com