In the early 80s, there was one SAT question that was literally impossible to answer
Everyone got it wrong and it wasn't their fault.

Teenager is baffled.
As if the SAT didn't already have a less-than-stellar reputation in terms of racial bias and the possible inability to truly measure a student's cognitive abilities, now a story about an expensive blunder is once again making the rounds on social media. Back in 1982, one math question on the test was completely impossible to answer on the multiple-choice Scantron. How was that possible? Because the correct answer hadn't even been listed.

Here was the question: Picture two circles, a large one marked B and a smaller one next to it with an arrow, marked A. "In the figure above, the radius of Circle A is 1/3 the radius of Circle B. Starting from the position shown in the figure, Circle A rolls around Circle B. At the end of how many revolutions of Circle A will the center of the circle first reach its starting point?" Is it A, 3/2; B, three; C, six; D, 9/2; or E, nine?
On the Veritasium YouTube page, they explain that if you were to look at the problem logically, you'd conclude the answer was B, three. Because the circumference of a circle is 2πr, and the radius of Circle B is three times that of Circle A, "logically it should take three full rotations of Circle A to roll around." However, that answer is wrong.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
In Jack Murtagh's piece "The SAT Problem that Everyone Got Wrong" for Scientific American, he conveys it all came down to the Coin Rotation Paradox (take note of this if you want to sound super intelligent on your next date or job interview).
You can try this yourself. Murtagh writes, "Here's how the paradox works: Place two quarters flat on a table so that they are touching. Holding one coin stationary on the table, roll the other quarter around it, keeping edge contact between the two without slipping. When the moving quarter returns to its starting location, how many full rotations has it made?"
Again, most test takers assumed that the answer was three. But "in fact, Circle A makes four rotations on its trip—again, exactly one more rotation than intuition expects. The paradox was so far from the test writers’ awareness that four wasn’t offered as an option among the possible answers, so even the most astute students were forced to submit a wrong response."
Why in fact was this the case? On the Scientific American YouTube page, it's explained again: "If you replace the larger circle with a straight line of the same length, then the smaller circle would indeed make three rotations. Somehow the circular path creates an extra rotation. And to see why, just imagine rotating a circle around a single point. There are two sources of rotation here. One from rolling along a path—and the longer the path is, the more rotations. And another from revolving around an object, which creates one extra rotation, no matter its size."
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Okay, one more try. Here, it's relayed in terms of actual astrophysics: "This general principle extends far beyond a mathematical fun fact. In fact, it's essential in astronomy for accurate timekeeping. When we count 365 days going by in a year—365.24, to be precise—we say we're just counting how many rotations the Earth makes in one orbit around the Sun. But it's not that simple. All this counting is done from the perspective of you on Earth. To an external observer, they'll see the Earth do one extra rotation to account for its circular path around the Sun. So while we count 365.24 days in a year, they count 366.24 days in a year."
What might be equally interesting is that out of 300,000 SAT test-takers who got that question at the time, only three wrote in to the College Board to challenge the answer. Ultimately, they had to fix the test, which cost them over $100,000. (In 1982, that's at least ten Happy Meals.)
The comment section on YouTube was buzzing.

This person suggests following your gut, even if that does mean challenging a professor or other authority figure: "In college, I took a poetry class and once had an answer marked wrong on a test. Confident in my response, I reached out to the poet themselves, who affirmed I was right and even communicated this to my professor. Despite not being a fan of poetry, that moment made me quite proud!"
Another person commented on the reasoning behind the paradox itself: "That part about the circle rotating around the triangle was mind-blowing. You instantly understand why it's not the same if the circle rolls on a flat line or rolls on a curved line."
And for this person, it brought peace of mind: "This was the one SAT I took, and I remember the question that didn't have a correct answer, and it wasn't until today that I understood the right answer. I can die happy now."






A woman is getting angry at her coworker.via
A man with tape over his mouth.via
A husband is angry with his wife. via 
a man sitting at a desk with his head on his arms Photo by
Can a warm cup of tea help you sleep better? If you believe it, then yes. Photo by 
Three women sit on a blanket in the park. 
Two women engaging in a pleasant conversation inside a coffee shop
Two men engaging in a peaceful disagreement.
Resurfaced video of French skier's groin incident has people giving the announcer a gold medal
"The boys took a beating on that one."
Downhill skiing is a sport rife with injuries, but not usually this kind.
A good commentator can make all the difference when watching sports, even when an event goes smoothly. But it's when something goes wrong that great announcers rise to the top. There's no better example of a great announcer in a surprise moment than when French skier Yannick Bertrand took a gate to the groin in a 2007 super-G race.
Competitive skiers fly down runs at incredible speeds, often exceeding 60 mph. Hitting something hard at that speed would definitely hurt, but hitting something hard with a particularly sensitive part of your body would be excruciating. So when Bertrand slammed right into a gate family-jewels-first, his high-pitched scream was unsurprising. What was surprising was the perfect commentary that immediately followed.
This is a clip you really just have to see and hear to fully appreciate:
- YouTube youtu.be
It's unclear who the announcer is, even after multiple Google inquiries, which is unfortunate because that gentleman deserves a medal. The commentary gets better with each repeated viewing, with highlights like:
"The gate the groin for Yannick Bertrand, and you could hear it. And if you're a man, you could feel it."
"Oh, the Frenchman. Oh-ho, monsieurrrrrr."
"The boys took a beating on that one."
"That guy needs a hug."
"Those are the moments that change your life if you're a man, I tell you what."
"When you crash through a gate, when you do it at high rate of speed, it's gonna hurt and it's going to leave a mark in most cases. And in this particular case, not the area where you want to leave a mark."
Imagine watching a man take a hit to the privates at 60 mph and having to make impromptu commentary straddling the line between professionalism and acknowledging the universal reality of what just happened. There are certain things you can't say on network television that you might feel compelled to say. There's a visceral element to this scenario that could easily be taken too far in the commentary, and the inherent humor element could be seen as insensitive and offensive if not handled just right.
The announcer nailed it. 10/10. No notes.
The clip frequently resurfaces during the Winter Olympic Games, though the incident didn't happen during an Olympic event. Yannick Bertrand was competing at the FIS World Cup super-G race in Kvitfjell, Norway in 2007, when the unfortunate accident occurred. Bertrand had competed at the Turin Olympics the year before, however, coming in 24th in the downhill and super-G events.
As painful as the gate to the groin clearly as, Bertrand did not appear to suffer any damage that kept him from the sport. In fact, he continued competing in international downhill and super-G races until 2014.
According to a 2018 study, Alpine skiing is a notoriously dangerous sport with a reported injury rate of 36.7 per 100 World Cup athletes per season. Of course, it's the knees and not the coin purse that are the most common casualty of ski racing, which we saw clearly in U.S. skier Lindsey Vonn's harrowing experiences at the 2026 Olympics. Vonn was competing with a torn ACL and ended up being helicoptered off of the mountain after an ugly crash that did additional damage to her legs, requiring multiple surgeries (though what caused the crash was reportedly unrelated to her ACL tear). Still, she says she has no regrets.
As Bertrand's return to the slopes shows, the risk of injury doesn't stop those who live for the thrill of victory, even when the agony of defeat hits them right in the rocks.