I thought about it for a while and eventually concluded "I dunno". There wasn't enough information and I'm obviously not imaginative enough to think of anything that seemed all that compelling. Hoax or not, the "correct" answer was unexpected, though I can see that some people may think like that.

I've heard this,


My English teacher in secondary school said this to the class, looking for interesting answers

I thought she felt that the man "knew" her sister and that by killing her he'd show up at her funeral.


Oh, man...does that mean I'm not mentally right?


Maybe that's why noone in CD likes me; you all think I'm a pychopath.

The woman finds out that her sister works as a capo for the Mob, which the woman knew nothing about. They get into an argument where a photo of a man falls out of the sisters purse who the sister tells is deep into the Mob for a quarter mil, and is late again with payments since he was suppose to pay up at the funeral, but didn't. Now the sister has no choice but to put a contract out on the man that the woman has fallen in love with, and in a bout of love stricken panic beats her sister to death with a toaster oven. And then trashes the apartment to make it look like a burglary gone wrong.



Am I close?

He wants to see him again at the sisters funeral?

Edit: Oh [censored]...

Your Spot On.

The voices told her to.

I had the wrong answer, and now I don't know if I should feel relieved or dissapointed seeing that lots of you guys got it right. Seriously I didn't even think about the correct answer, but now when I look back at the question it was kinda obvious really.

even the smallest changes can completely rewrite the results
only saying she never knew where the man lived or what his phone number was does little to suggest she only met the man at the funeral

and my thought was lack of information


if this was criminal minds i'd bet you were spot on even with the complete lack of supporting evidence

I think this explanation should be promoted to The Correct Answer™.

No, it just means you're too founded in science to even think that way. Only someone who has a complete lack of understanding of basic scientific understandings like "correlation does not imply causation". Only someone who thinks correlation does imply causation would murder someone to make someone else appear again.

You could say that "well, he showed up at the mother's funeral, so he must be close to the family". The fact that the sister didn't know him proves he wasn't close to the family. It makes sense that either he was a friend of the mother only, not the family (maybe a friendly coworker or neighbor) or was just at the wrong funeral. In the case of the latter, the chances are small he'd appear again. In the case of the former he definitely wouldn't appear again.


In the end, the only scientifically sound explanation for what happened is old Andy's.

Usually when the words "famous" "X" "Y" (famous American psychologist, famous Chinese doctor, etc) are put into a sentence and a name isn't also included, it's complete BS, just like this "test."

And answering one measly question doesn't (generally) tell you anything useful about anyone's personality or mental state - there's a reason the MMPI-2 has 370 different questions (and that's the short version - full version has 567 questions). Also, as DEFRON mentioned, correlation does not equal causation - simply because you answered one question the same way a hypothetical psychopath did does not mean you are a psychopath or think like one. And answering the question "incorrectly" doesn't exonerate you from being a psychopath either.

I heard that all psychopaths have high levels of dihydrogen monoxide in their systems. We should just check people for dihydrogen monoxide and throw everyone who has high levels of it in the loony bin.

Yay correlation!

Really, though: To jump to the conclusion that another funeral will cause the guy to appear again (or that someone would think that another funeral would cause the guy to appear again) just shows a lack of understanding of the difference between correlation and causation. Not psychopathy.

occam's razor would sugjest that the woman was going to kill her sister anyway, and that the man at the funeral has nothing to do with it.

Neither I nor you should take this so seriously.

Are you implying that the man was in fact a detective investigating the mysterious death of the mother? He's probably coming back now to investigate the circumstances surrounding the sister's mysterious death.

Actually I was implying circumstantial coincidence, but that works for me as well

That was a interesting test. I was kind of close, answering "Because her sister was already in love with him"

SHE KILLED HER FOR FUN

QFT
Perhaps the OP could edit the original post to reflect the fact that this test is not a test at all.
Just a thought.

Wow, I would've NEVER thought of that.

I'm assuming that the sister got the guy's number and other sister got jealous and killed her.

I was thinking along those lines too.

You'll be surprised just how common that is. I've watched Deadly Women on channel 79 and stories like this arn't unheard of.

Yep. Thanks for the clarification.