Question 1210606
.


Regarding this incoming problem, tutor @KMST made a remarkable discovery: she found that in this task 
(which appears simple at first glance) there exists an alternative, unexpected reading/interpretation 
which completely changes the game. I am impressed by the @KMST' discovery.


I looked at some other web-sites, and they all as one treat the problem as "4 + 3n = -5".


@KMST showed that, alongside the traditional interpretation "4 + 3n = -5,"
a completely different interpretation is possible: "(4 + 3)n = -5",
and, moreover, both versions are equally valid.


This demonstrates that even in cases that seem straightforward at first glance, hidden pitfalls may exist.


Thus, only in simple cases verbal quantitative descriptions are secure. 
In more complicated cases, verbal descriptions simply do not work and leave room for various interpretations. 
This is why in Mathematics (and in Science, in general), starting from a certain level of complexity, 
that kind verbal descriptions are considered as dangerous and NEVER used in serious texts.
They have been displaced by precise mathematical expressions 200 or 300 years ago, when the modern/contemporary
Math language was created.


I think that the time, when such wording exercises were actual from the educational point of view, 
gone forever approximately 200 years ago, and the attempts to construct any sort of educational framework 
upon this foundation are simply laughable - same as attempts to turn back the hands of time.


Regarding this remarkable post by @KMST, I only want to warn a reader about her typo: 
in cases when she interprets "-4 - 5" as "-7", a reader should read "-4 - 5" as "-9".