Ambiguous or not?

FoxEye · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:16

Simple question time...

"...you and your immediate family (max 2 adults and 3 children)..."

"You" are an adult. So how many adults and children in total are being referred to?

The correct answer btw is 2 adults (including yourself) and 3 children.

I'm wondering if anyone here could possibly interpret that any other way? And if so, why/how?

chroniclard · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:18

Isn't that the max, so there could be 1 adult and possibly less children, some context is required.

FoxEye · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:29

chroniclard said:
Isn't that the max, so there could be 1 adult and possibly less children, some context is required.

Context isn't 100% necessary, I don't think.

Under no circumstances would you assume that statement could be referring to a total party size of up to 3 adults and up to 3 children, yes?

That's the crux of the question.

Kenai · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:36

FoxEye said:
Context isn't 100% necessary, I don't think.

Under no circumstances would you assume that statement could be referring to a total party size of up to 3 adults and up to 3 children, yes?

That's the crux of the question.

Have you read the thread about commuting in motors? I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who would argue it meant 12 adults and 47 children

FoxEye · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:40

Kenai said:
Have you read the thread about commuting in motors? I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who would argue it meant 12 adults and 47 children

I'm not often in that neck of the woods, as I don't have enough Bitcoin to drive a Lambo. Also I know literally nothing about cars or driving.

But thanks for the reply

Diagro · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:41

i would add the words "Up to" so "... You and your immediate family (up to 2 adults and 3 children in total)

fixed

FoxEye · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:44

Diagro said:
i would add the words "Up to" so "... You and your immediate family (up to 2 adults and 3 children in total)

fixed

You've also added "in total" however, which was not in the original text.

"...you and your immediate family (up to 2 adults and 3 children)..."

But that still means up to 2 adults and 3 children in total, yes. The "in total" is implied.

What I'm getting at is... could a lawyer successfully argue that the condition was applied to the "immediate family" part only, and that "you" were outside of this qualification?

Hotwired · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:54

Yes it's ambiguous.

I wouldn't place any bets on some stupidity happening over it simply because the question implies an answer.

asim18 · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:56

Yeah it could mean that you can have have Mom + Dad + 4 children one of whom is over 18.

FoxEye · 9 Dec 2018 at 23:58

Hotwired said:
Yes it's ambiguous.

In what way?

Hotwired · 10 Dec 2018 at 00:05

FoxEye said:
In what way?

An assumption of 3+3 is less reasonable than 2+3 but not illogical.

Malevolence · 10 Dec 2018 at 01:23

Doesn't specify how old the children have to be. The 'children' could be 39, 43 and 51 they're adults but they're also still their parents' children.

Eurofighter · 10 Dec 2018 at 03:04

Malevolence said:
Doesn't specify how old the children have to be. The 'children' could be 39, 43 and 51 they're adults but they're also still their parents' children.

Child legally means someone under 18.

asim18 · 10 Dec 2018 at 03:23

Eurofighter said:
Child legally means someone under 18.

Yeah true.

I think replace the word child with offspring.

Spuj · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:10

The way I would read it is myself, one other adult and my three children.

For me the keyword is it is saying MAX 2 adults, so no matter what it says before about you and your immediate family, it is still saying max 2 adults and 3 children.

Martynt74 · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:28

Spuj said:
The way I would read it is myself, one other adult and my three children.

For me the keyword is it is saying MAX 2 adults, so no matter what it says before about you and your immediate family, it is still saying max 2 adults and 3 children.

Agreed, presumably this is for some kind of workplace healthcare scheme? I have it which covers my family but once my kids are past 18 then they're not covered because they're adults.

Destination · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:32

Hotwired said:
An assumption of 3+3 is less reasonable than 2+3 but not illogical.

agree you + () then a qualification
The brackets might mean the full amount including you, but it isn't specific.

I would see it as 2 adults 3 kids max, but some might assume it is you + the above....
BODMAS

Dis86 · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:49

Eurofighter said:
Child legally means someone under 18.

Meh nevermind

Jean-F · 10 Dec 2018 at 13:35

chroniclard said:
Isn't that the max, so there could be 1 adult and possibly less children, some context is required.

I’m glad that you posted that, I was racking, (should that be wracking?), my brains as to why the OP asked the question, and thinking, “Do I expose myself as a complete idiot, by not knowing what was meant by the OP?”

Burned_Alive · 10 Dec 2018 at 13:40

While I would read it as 2 adults and 3 children, it could be read as You (1) and your immediate family (max 2 adults and 3 children)(5) = 6.