Or three, depending on your definition of “animal.”
Sorry. No. It does not say, Every elephant was headed for the river, and on the way, they each saw two monkeys headed toward the river.
Those going toward the river: One rabbit, two monkeys, and two parrots.
Every elephant may have seen the same 2 monkeys. Also it is unclear whether the elephants are heading to the river or not. So we have definitvely:
The rabbit (no relation)
At least two monkeys
At least two parrots
For five minimum.
If each elephant saw two unique monkeys, we have:
The six elephants, who MAY have been heading for the river
Twelve monkeys (that’d be a good name for a movie)
For a maximum of 31 animals.
That’s how I read it too.
I count the same way, but deduct the six elephants who it clearly does not say were heading for the river. That leaves me with 25.
And yes, we all seem agreed the parrots are “animals.”
Clearly some have chosen to misinterpret the second sentence.
Au contraire…I readily admit to two possible interpretations and thus two possible answers. I chose one of them but cannot prove my interpretation to be superior to the other.
…but it’s YOUR interpretation. Wouldn’t that imply it’s superior?
though, I respectfully disagree.
It might have…once upon a time. But I’ve had a really profound ego death over the past few months and I’m a different man now.
…and your sense of humor did not survive the transformation?
I’m going with 5 as well.
1 rabbit is going towards the river.
2 monkeys are going towards the river.
2 parrots are going towards the river because the 2 monkeys are holding a parrot each.
LOL. I was on a BB about house rabbits, which are quite territorial, especially the does. Someone asked “what’s the best way to integrate a new rabbit” and I answered “add up all of its cross-sectional areas along its length”. Nobody seemed to like it.