Hi onlyPlanA,Good eye on the wording, and you're right that adding
"remaining" would read more cleanly. But here's the reassuring part: the sentence isn't actually ambiguous, because only one reading is mathematically possible.
Look at how chetan2u set it up. At each temple he treated "two-third of her flowers" as
two-thirds of what she is holding at that moment - i.e., her remaining flowers. That's the reading you suspected, and it's the only one that works.
Why the other reading collapses immediatelySuppose "her flowers" meant two-thirds of her
original66 every time.
- At the first temple she'd offer (2/3)(
66) +
1 =
45, leaving
21.
- At the second temple she'd again need to offer (2/3)(
66) +
1 =
45 - but she only has
21 left.
You can't give away
45 flowers when you're holding
21. So the "two-thirds of the original pile" interpretation breaks on the very next step. The phrase
has to mean "two-thirds of what she currently has," exactly as the backward solution assumed.
So the missing word doesn't create a real fork in the meaning - the numbers force the intended reading. The actual source of difficulty here isn't the phrasing; it's that the cleanest route is to
work backwards from the
1 flower she ends with, since each temple's leftover depends on the one before it.
Bottom line: trust the interpretation chetan2u used - it's the only consistent one - and the answer stays
B.
Answer: BonlyPlanA
Did this question become "hard" because in the statement: "At the second temple also she offered two-third of her flowers, and an extra flower", the word "remaining" was missing? Ideally, it should be "At the second temple, she offered two-third of her
remaining flowers, and an extra flower."