I question the legality of the question about "who would survive". A CHILD?! You wrote that a soldier or an adventurer is more likely to die... Please. I'm in Rifleman's Association, which is like an Army Lite Version, and we have SOME training to survive in the wilderness.
A child wouldn't know 99% of the things in this test, BUT he would survive sooner than I would?! A kid would drink water where bears crap, eat poisonous mushrooms because he saw people earing them and he doesn't see a difference between edible fungi and a red one. Heck, he might consider it a tasty, strawberry shroom. Oh, and kids would eat the purple berries that would taste like burning.
Not to mention that a child wouldn't know the danger of provoking a wild animal, such as a bear or a wild boar.
Redingold said:
Finally, are soldiers not trained to cope with survival situations? They surely can't be trained to ignore risk. That would be counter-productive. They must be trained to assess risk, and calculate the most effective way of dealing with it, right?
Good to see someone else agreeing with me. In the quiz, I would first choose the soldier, who is physically fit, disciplined and trained to survive hardships, then it would be the mountain climber because of his obvious strength and condition, then the businessman because... HE'S A GOD DAMN GROWN MAN! Who might actually have a CELLPHONE. Which child (under the age of 6-7) has a CELLPHONE?! Or knows how to set a fire, how to get food...
