A rather ordinary middle-aged man is in the hospital for a routine checkup. The nurse writes “200” on the patient’s medical chart but forgets to include the units. Which of these quantities could the 200 plausibly represent? The patient’s (a) mass in kilograms; (b) height in meters; (c) height in centimeters; (d) height in millimeters; (e) age in months.
The correct answer and explanation is:
The correct answer is (c) height in centimeters.
Here’s an explanation of why that is the most plausible:
- Mass in kilograms: The number 200 is too large to be a reasonable mass for a human in kilograms. The average adult mass is typically between 50-100 kg, with some individuals being heavier, but 200 kg would be considered exceptionally heavy, and it is unlikely that this would be the first thing noted in a routine checkup.
- Height in meters: 200 meters is an extreme height for a human. The tallest humans on record are around 2.5 meters tall. Therefore, 200 meters would be highly implausible as a human height.
- Height in centimeters: This is the most reasonable option. The average adult height is between 150-190 centimeters, with taller individuals reaching over 200 cm. If the height of a person is 200 cm, this is a plausible figure, as it is within the realm of average human heights.
- Height in millimeters: 200 millimeters is only 20 centimeters, which is far too short for a human height. Even a child would have a height greater than this by the time they are several months old.
- Age in months: While it is possible for someone to be 200 months old, this would be equivalent to about 16.5 years. In a routine checkup for an adult, the age would typically be recorded in years, so it is less likely that the unit would be missing in this case.
Thus, the most plausible interpretation of “200” would be that it represents the patient’s height in centimeters, making option (c) the correct choice.