Definitely different ways of looking at it in which both answers could be deemed correct. I could also make a (bit of a ) case for 52 by multiplying the second figure by an increasing number each time: 1 + (4x1) = 5 2 + (5x2) = 12 3 + (6x3) = 21 8 + (11x4) = 52 ..et voila!
That is not logical because what about the natural progression from 3 to 8? You can't just randomly jump from 3 to 8 on one side but only from 3 to 4 on the other side!
But you still have that random jump fron 3 to 8 which does indeed make 40 in the numbers shown but they don't make logical sense, counting is progressive, not erratic!
Just seen this rather amusing swipe at Chris Sutton's "punditry" Congrats if anyone claims to understand every the meaning single word used in this piece! https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...otball-angry-pundit-bt-sport?CMP=share_btn_tw
Going back to this (sorry!) I'm now with you on this Dave. If you assume a logical progression (that is, where the unseen parts are 4+7 (making 32), 5+8 (45), 6+9 (60), and 7+10 (77) then it has to be 96. My final word!
We may get our influx of cash after all, as I've just seen this - "Finally, speculation that Delia Smith could replace Mary Berry when The Great British Bake Off moves from the BBC to Channel 4 features in the People and the Sunday Mirror." Edit - Ed Balls stay in Strictly could be quite brief according to the Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/10/01/strictly-come-dancing-2016-week-2-saturday2/
I see this on facebook fairly regularly and the answer is there isn't enough information to give a definitive answer its either 96 or 52.
