That reminds me: when I was little, there was a puzzle in a happy meal that said, “Rearrange these letters to spell something that can make a canoe sink: ELAK.” The correct answer, of course, was “leak”. I was upset, because my answer was “a elk”. (And now that I think about it, if you draw this as a causal diagram, “lake” should be a valid answer too.)
Well, strictly speaking, if you pile KALE high enough on your canoe, it will also cause it to sink due to excess weight. But that doesn’t make KALE the best or most likely answer.
-Benjamin Franklin
That reminds me: when I was little, there was a puzzle in a happy meal that said, “Rearrange these letters to spell something that can make a canoe sink: ELAK.” The correct answer, of course, was “leak”. I was upset, because my answer was “a elk”. (And now that I think about it, if you draw this as a causal diagram, “lake” should be a valid answer too.)
Well, strictly speaking, if you pile KALE high enough on your canoe, it will also cause it to sink due to excess weight. But that doesn’t make KALE the best or most likely answer.
I do like your answer, though.
Clearly causality is secondary to grammar; had it been ‘ELANK’ you would have been right.
For some reason, I really like “a elk”.
I’m not sure what to make of the fact that “lake” was the answer that jumped out at me.
That you are given three of the four letters for “lake” in correct, consecutive order.
I don’t remember the original order of the letters in the puzzle, but it must have been constructed to make the intended answer not stand out.
That was my answer too.
But “a elk” has no meaning as a phrase! It’s just an error. There’s no ‘n’ so elks are out.
(My answer was lake btw.)