Which path would you take?

Question

you're leading a group of 100 people through the forest.

you come to two paths.

first path: there is a 50-50 chance that they will all live or that they will all die.

second path: only 80% of the people will live (20% will die)

you live no matter what.

what path would you take???

Answer 1

I would adress the crowd, and tell them what each path's odds were.

Then I would tell them they are free to choose either but I reccomend  going down the 2nd path (80%/20%), becuase they have a 80% chance of living vs. 50% chance.

There would be a few people that choose to go down path one, I am sure. (2 lovers who did not want to live if the other one didn't)

I would guess that most would follow me.

Answer 2

I wouldn't do this no matter what, for I wouldn't consider saving my own life and waste others'.

In other words, I would never make my life safe and risk or let die a number of people.

Answer 3

If I was in charge of these people's well being, I would have them wait while I walk further down each path myself to see exactly what each risk is about. If anyone else had walked down them I'd gather info from them as well. Only then would I even consider choosing a path for the others. After gathering accurate knowledge I'd come up with a way to avert any deaths at all on whichever path works the best. If this is not possible then I would inform the group and allow them to make the decision together.

Answer 4

First path, because with me,  they'll all Live, and  NO Doubt about that, because I'm a Survivor...

Answer 5

second path, probably.

Answer 6

The second because like the most noble I just could not risk the loss of anymore deaths.

Answer 7

The latter(2nd)...the guarantee of 80% surving is better odds then all dying....there would be no purpose for me if none survived.

Answer 8

Some battle have its own sacrifices and victories, a freedom of the whole country cannot be won without a fight and risking soldiers dieing during those times.

We cant please EVERYONE at once in this world, its just the way it is.  The same as we cant save everyone in this world yet, maybe if superman is around then i think its possible...

A chance of 20% of the populations died so the 80 % of the populations would survive already happened in the past, I thought thats why WW I & II happened.

If you take the first option, and the risk of the whole group of 100 people die excluding yourself, since you will live no matter what!  What a bummer.

Answer 9

I would probably take the first path, trusting hundred percent that it will be okay for everybody and doing everything in my power to make it work.

Edit: I would make this decision if it would hundred percent only depend on me as a leader, as I would trust myself.

If it would depend on the support or the behavior of the others I would also take the second path.

Answer 10

I would rather sacrifice my own self for those 100 people than given the chose of their lives in my hand!!

Answer 11

I would take the second path and bring each person one by one through the second path because that way if 20% of the people die in this path. Each person I take will only get injured and will not die. And they can live and be treated onthe other side. Or they can recover naturally by them self. This way no one will die.

Answer 12

I would take 50 people to go on the first, and let the rest to go on the second. Therefore the # for us to survive is 40 or 90. Pretty interesting hey?

You always have to take risk in life.