Maybe you have seen something like this:

The answer is “14” or some other number. Who knows.

Because while “blue apple” = 10

Red Bananas^{4} = 4

Coconuts^{2} = 2

Red Bananas^{3} = 3

Coconuts^{1} = 1

The trick is that we see the image as 3 glyphs and figure out the math

But the last line has changed the coconut glyph into a new glyph with only one coconout, and the bananas into a new glyph with only 3 bananas.

The coconut switch I saw early on; only as I was writing this up did I notice the banana-bait-and-switch.

The answer of “14” (or whatever the f**k somebody says it is) relies on math from the first three lines.

But if the last line introduces *two new glyphs* we can’t assume that the new glyphs bear any similarity to what came before. `4-bananas-glyph = 4`

so `3-bananas-glyph = 3`

, right?

But why does `1-apple-glyph = 10`

and not **1** ???

It’s not consistent, and relies on tricks.

One could try to argue that there *are* 3 glyphs - blue apple, red banana, and coconut - and we just see the apples and coconuts combined.

But that doesn’t make any sense - why would they *sometimes* be combined, and sometimes *not*?

If we are to make mathematical extrapolations, the usage has to be consistent.

And it is not.