Eleventeen, obviously.

That’s the logic these days. Nothing adds up so it’s the “because I said so”.

You can claim carbon credits for each gram of meth you smoke... so the answer is Five.

According to cc, 9 years left. Sorry can't draw in comment box to show my work. And crayons don't bleed through the screen

Enough to kill us all in a decade yet again apparently.

Sounds like Biden speech.,

I swear to god I've seen similar "word problems" in the common core curriculum. Yay homeschool.

The only reason that there have been 2 bathrooms in public is that there are only 2 genders. Anyone that thinks there are 3+ genders are mentally ill. Pushing 3+ genders shows a low IQ and easily programmed by other low IQ entities.

Considering the methane emissions from Hildebeast alone, I would say the answer is 47 gazillion.

Zero. You can't divide a null sum by a nill quotient and expect a positive result.

17 is the answer, of course!

There appears to be a contradiction. If something is “self- evident , as an example, then the word “self-evidence” does not need to be repeated all the time does it; it can be uttered only once, or twice at the most, or even thrice or more, you no doubt see the point here, less it devolve to verbal mendacity, an arcane academic lingo that never reflects reality and whose main purpose is to lead to flawed conceptualization, or as so often the case, duplicitous scientific jargon masking ignorance. Certainly detractors would argue the inverse of this though the point would likely be obscure. Ironically, seldom has the question been raised, often couched in sentimentalist vs. animalistic words and syllabi, respectively, rarely more obvious than as with expression in macrophages throughout the reticulo-endothelial system, the possible exception being eulogy ensconced in political vilification of climate change proponents, which arguably would be off topic here, at least as regards determinants of the biological response to ENPs. I believe a review of the material presented would lead one with critical perspective to just such a conclusion regarding the meta-gene issue, as I am sure you would no doubt agree, irregardless (look it up in your Funk'n Wagnell) of source, the wide spread assumption among free thinkers being that the concepts behind these flowery words must be taken, as alluded to, as something self-evident. What are your thoughts on this? ...

Easy. Trump/Russia collusion.