Does anyone have a question

Best value. Real Time. Real person does the revisions. Fast and professional. Secure payment. Bronze package credits Silver package credits Gold package credits Secure payment. Toggle navigation. How it works Services. TextRanch The best way to perfect your writing. Check your entire sentence for FREE! Check now. One of our experts will correct your English. More popular! Some examples from the web: Just say "I do" whenever anyone asks you a question. We need to erase it before anyone starts asking questions.

Usually, this is where Sam and Dean take off before anyone asks any questions. Sinteres isn't known to have one, but I don't think anyone 'll ask questions. We could move up to 10 million before anyone else starts asking questions.

Now does anyone have a question about, you know, the issues? Does anyone have a question that is not about Baze? Does anyone has a questions ,, results on the web.

Some examples from the web: Now does anyone have a question about, you know, the issues? Does anyone have a question that does not relate to Jurassic Park? Connie never let anyone question your dreams. Look, does anyone have a question about the deadly virus that could kill us all? Children, does anyone have a question for Mr. I'm not trying to hide. Become a superhero of written English. Related Comparisons. Should you have any questions or if you have any questions? Do anyone have lectures?

I have a few questions or I have a questions? Should you have any questions or Should you? Faber et al. The question answerability judgments examined in the present study potentially include deliberations about the ignorance of other people or groups, including the whole of mankind.

As far as we know, such question answerability judgments have not been thoroughly studied before. The present study contributes by studying broad answerability judgments of questions about factual states of the world where the answer may not be generally agreed upon or simply is unknown.

Answerability judgments can be classified in different ways. For example, they can be seen as a divergent thinking task because the person facing an answerability judgment may consider several alternative interpretations of, or answers to, the question that is judged see e.

For answerability judgments of questions, people may first consider if they have heard the specific question before, and if they or someone else may know the answer. If so, the question may be judged to be answerable. Later they may make other more general considerations, for example with respect to how much is known in the area the question belongs to, if there are alternative meanings to the question, or if general ways that the question could be answered can be thought of.

They may also consider if it is likely that the answer to the question will ever be found, and if so, how long time it will take, for example based on the amount of work required to answer it.

Each of these aspects may lead to further deliberations. A common conclusion is that people have a tendency to trust socially prevalent understanding e. Socially prevalent understanding will henceforth be called consensus knowledge and consensus is seen as a matter of degree.

In general, it seems reasonable that people may often seek guidance from what they conceive of as common opinions and attitudes in their environment when making answerability judgments. This guidance may take place both with respect to the answer to the question judged answer consensus and with respect to question answerability answerability consensus. There are at least three types of possible answerability consensus: whether there is some answer to the question today , whether it can be answered in the future , and about the answerability of specific types of questions.

Koriat , showed elegantly that main trends in socially prevalent understanding are an important influence on individuals. To illustrate, Koriat found high confidence both when individuals in a two-alternative general knowledge task selected the commonly believed answer alternative that was also the correct answer, and when individuals selected the commonly believed, but incorrect, answer.

In this research we investigated answerability judgments of three types of questions: questions for which we expected a high degree of consensus regarding their answerability consensus questions , questions for which we expected a low degree of such answerability consensus non-consensus questions , and questions that may appear answerable but where some information necessary to answer it was missing illusion questions.

However, we do not claim that there is an absolute qualitative difference between these question types, rather the difference may be a question of degree. In addition, we were also interested in studying the degree to which individual difference variables influenced questions with different levels of expected consensus about their answerability further elaborated below. The illusion questions were included in order to examine the extent to which missing information in the questions might be compensated for by the use of other types of information such as conceptions about the answerability of specific types of questions.

We expected that consensus questions would be rated higher in answerability than non-consensus questions Hypothesis 1. This was partly because we expected that it would be relatively easy for the participants to either provide what they thought was the correct answer to the question thus showing that is was answerable , or to imagine some easily performed way to get the answer to the question.

The illusion questions belonged to geometry and physics and, since we had purposefully eliminated information necessary to answer them, they show similarity to the questions used in the witness psychology and memory studies reviewed above.

Moreover, they were designed to appear fairly elementary and computable and we believed many participants possibly from their school experience would think that the answer to such elementary computational questions in general is possible to compute.

Due to the low number of illusion questions, these were not statistically compared to the other types of questions in level of answerability. But in general we expected some, but not all, participants to notice that information was missing and for this reason that these questions would be given lower answerability values than the consensus questions. Answerability judgments can be made on different types of scales and it is of interest to understand the extent to which the level of the answerability judgment varies as an effect of the used scale.

Therefore we compared two kinds of answerability scales with respect to their effect on the level of answerability judgments. One scale related to the current answerability of the question and the other scale to when , if ever, a question can be answered. These two scales were included because it is reasonable to think they are commonly used, explicitly or implicitly, when people judge the answerability of questions in everyday life.

In addition, we were interested to compare the answerability levels of the judged questions on the two scales since if the rank order in answerability is stable between the two scales this is an indication of some stability in the processes generating the answerability judgments. Given the potential importance of answerability in everyday life it is also of interest to study if answerability judgments are influenced by factors that, per se , may be irrelevant to their realism.

In general it would seem that consensus type questions are more likely to be judged by use of quick and fairly automated processes of a System 1 kind e. The reason is that socially prevalent knowledge is more likely to be encountered more frequently and thus is more likely to be automatized and taken for granted.

In contrast, non-consensus questions may, for related reasons, be more likely to be judged by less automated, and more deliberate and elaborated, processing of a System 2 kind. Thus, we believed the individual difference variables we studied would have more influence on the judgments of the non-consensus questions, compared with the consensus questions Hypothesis 2.

Personal beliefs about knowledge and knowing in general are referred to as global epistemic beliefs and can be separated from domain specific epistemic beliefs which concern beliefs about knowledge in specific domains, such as physics or history. Due to the broad span of questions used in the present study we were primarily interested in global aspects of beliefs about epistemic issues.

Thus, we expected that people who believed more in certainty of knowledge would give higher answerability ratings Hypothesis 3.

In line with Hypothesis 2, this difference was, for this and all the following hypotheses, expected to hold foremost for the non-consensus questions. Shallow or deep processing might influence answerability judgments. Two kinds of processing preferences are measured by the EPI-r scale Elphinstone et al. We expected that participants with default processing preferences would tend to choose interpretations that come quickly to mind and are easy to handle and therefore would find questions more answerable.

Furthermore, we expected that preference for intellectual processing would be associated with lower answerability judgments since participants high in this preference would problematize the possible constructions of answers to questions more than participants low in this preference Hypothesis 6.

Our reasoning here was that people with a higher default processing preference may be more prone to rely on general rules of thumb e. Optimism may also affect the level of answerability judgments. People with generalized personal optimism tend to interpret things in a positive way and are less likely to give up Muhonen and Torkelson, ; Carver et al.

As optimists are less likely to give up goals for example to answer questions they may think that, given enough attempts, answers to questions will be found. On the other hand, many unsuccessful attempts to find something may lead to a belief that this something does not exist Hahn and Oaksford, , but maybe less so for optimists.

A further part of optimism is that optimists expect good things to happen in uncertain times Monzani et al. This could lead questions being seen as more answerable but also to better tolerance of uncertainty in the environment. Optimists may therefore for example be more willing to accept that answers to questions may be uncertain or non-existing.

In sum, different features of optimism seem to be theoretically related to answerability in different ways. Therefore we explored optimism in relation to answerability but did not pose a hypothesis in this context. The mean age was 28 years range 18—78 years. As a reimbursement, participants participated in a lottery for a cinema ticket.

The present study followed ethical guidelines in Sweden for survey data. Participants were recruited from a pool of adults that had already actively volunteered and signed up for participation in psychological research and can thus be considered consciously aware of participation in general.

They were provided with information about the purpose of the study via e-mail and were told that participation was not mandatory. In the email they were informed that their answers only would be used for research purposes, that they could withdraw at any time.

The email also provided relevant contact information. Participants gave their consent by clicking on a survey link. When clicking on the link for participation participants were randomized to four groups. Approximately half of the participants were randomized to each of two scale variants: the current answerability scale and the future answerability scale described below.

In order to control for any ordering effects within each scale variant group the order of the question blocks was altered, constituting two order conditions. In total individuals from participant pools at the University of Gothenburg were invited to answer a web-questionnaire.

It was not possible to go back to previous pages in the questionnaire to change answers. If participants left a question unanswered, they were kindly reminded but not forced, to complete the question. This rendered answers. Out of these , 1 participants answered all the 22 answerability questions and data from that set of people were used for further analysis. A questionnaire with 22 questions was prepared.

Each question-item consisted of a question to be judged for answerability. We attempted to include a varied sample of questions from different domains, for example, medicine, Swedish grammar and technology the questions are further described in Appendix 1. However, at the same time we kept the total number of questions reasonably low in order to achieve a good response rate and an even answer quality throughout the questionnaire Galesic and Bosnjak, Three types of questions were used.

There were eight consensus questions. These were questions for which we expected a high degree of consensus that the question is answerable. The remaining two questions were illusion questions in which a crucial detail necessary to compute the answer was missing.

Bottoms et al. In a pre-study participants from a student pool at the University of Gothenburg rated various aspects of the 22 question-items. The questions in the present study were organized in pairs so that questions of different categories were matched with each other. There were two pairs of questions containing one illusion and one consensus questions, six pairs containing one consensus and one non-consensus question, and three pairs containing two non-consensus questions.

The just described pairs of answerability questions were presented in an order randomized for each participant. For both scale variants the current and future answerability scales , the instructions stressed that the judgment task was not to provide the answer as such to the question but to judge the answerability of the question.

Each screen in the questionnaire presented two questions for which the participants were to give answerability judgments. That the answer can be answered correctly and that good arguments for the answer can be provided. That the question can be answered in a sufficiently exact and relevant way. Two scales were prepared for the answerability judgments. The two scales are shown in Figure 1. The current answerability scale and the future answerability scale.

Higher values indicate higher belief in certainty of knowledge. Life orientation test revised measures the degree of optimism regarding oneself and has six items Monzani et al. Means, medians, SDs, and interquartile range for the answerability judgments for the three types of questions are shown in Table 1. Since the future answerability scale starts with two categories of a nominal type, these categories were recoded into the same category in order to make the scale more ordinal.

Medians and interquartile range were used for the future answerability scale. TABLE 1. Central tendencies and deviations in the answerability judgments for the current and the future answerability scales.

Most of the respondents 75th percentile rated the non-consensus questions to be answered within a maximum of 50 years. Next, analyzes of the differences in the answerability judgments of the consensus and non-consensus items are presented. After this, the analyses of the influence of the individual differences variables on the answerability judgments are described.

The illusion questions were excluded from these analyses due to the low number of items in this question category. The analyses of the illusion questions are presented at the end of the result section for each scale type. In order to investigate differences between consensus and non-consensus questions a mixed ANCOVA was conducted with the within-subject factor of question type consensus vs.

We found no effect of the order factor i. Due to the ordinal properties of the future answerability scale non-parametric tests were used. To estimate the effect sizes the probability of superiority estimator PS was used, following Grissom and Kim recommendations. The PS estimates the probability that a score randomly drawn from population a will be greater than a score randomly drawn from population b.

Therefore the results for the future answerability of the non-consensus questions were analyzed jointly and separately per order condition and reported when relevant. To investigate differences between future answerability for the consensus and non-consensus questions a Wilcoxon signed rank test was used.

The median of each question item on the current answerability scale was correlated with the median of each corresponding question item on the future answerability scale. Thus, on average, the questions considered unlikely to be answered today were considered to be answered in a more distant future. The negative sign emerges because the future answerability scale values are higher in a more distant future.

The means and SDs for the individual difference variables and the current answerability ratings of consensus, non-consensus and illusion questions and Pearson correlations between these variables are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2. Current answerability scale ratings: means and SDs and Pearson correlations between the individual difference variables and the answerability ratings of the consensus, non-consensus, and illusion questions.

Does anyone have any questionS? Does anyone have any question? What's the difference? I think there's a difference in emphasis.

See a translation. Report copyright infringement. The owner of it will not be notified. Only the user who asked this question will see who disagreed with this answer. Read more comments.