Not enough information...although I'm sure if you asked a bunch of monkeys, one of them would answer you correctly

Pretty sure I gave enough info...what else do you need?

How smart are the monkeys?

 average monkey smart

Is it 4 to the 50th power monkeys? The problem with monkey analysis is that it's not a complete random number generator. The monkeys might influence one another, after all monkey see, monkey do. Monkeys tend to pick "B" repeatedly because monkeys think that B means banana.

 Okay, counselor Pirates, I will hit up my calculator and get back to you.  My gut tells me your guess is too high, but we will see...

I bet it's .35*(4^50) monkeys. If you're only trying for 35% accuracy. But, I don't think it's entirely right because monkeys aren't random number generators. They're not dependent variables. If monkey-see monkey-do holds true, then they could very well all hit the same button each time (see supra re bananas)

What's up Ricky. You lawyers may be smart - most probably smarter than monkeys even ... but it looks like you need the help of a Financial Engineer with this problem. ;)

You'd need ~13 monkeys taking the test such that there is a greater than 50% chance that at least one of them scores 35% or better.

A single monkey has a score that follows a binomial distribution with 50 trials and a success of each trial of 25% (ie, 50 questions, 4 choices each question). This binomial distribution can be approximated with a normal distribution with mean of [50 * .25] and standard deviation of [sqrt(50 * .25 * .75)]. To get at least 35% correct on the test, the monkey would need at least 17.5 questions correct, which is 1.63 standard deviations from the mean [(17.5 - mean) / std dev]. A z-score of 1.63 or better happens 5.12% of the time [1 - (standard normal cumulative distribution function evaluated at 1.63)] meaning that a single monkey would score 35% or better with probability 5.12%.

Now we want to know how many monkeys it takes to get a 50% probability or better that at least one of them scores at least 35%. With a batch of n monkeys, the probability that NONE of them score 35% or better is [(1 - 5.12%) ^ n]. So, the probably that AT LEAST ONE of them scores 35% or better is [1 - (1 - 5.12%) ^ n]. We want this probability to be greater than or equal to 50%, so simply set this equation equal to 50%, and solve for n (consolidate terms, take log of both sides, and divide). Viola - 13.179 monkeys!

It's up to you to determine whether 13 monkeys is a comforting number or not. At any rate, I would guess there are many fewer videos of monkeys doing card tricks on YouTube. =)

What kind of guest blog is this?? All I see are editor's comments.

Tom, it seems you came to the blog during a down period. It was kickin' just a month ago! Ricky just changed the website to promote his book, so I think most readers don't realize it's still a blog about law school.

Also, your story would benefit from specifics, which might inspire more comments. A "grand adventure full of reminiscence, controversy, mystery, intrigue, and even a little hostility” could describe anything from 'The Three Musketeers' to a weekend brunch at IHOP with my family.

 Down period?!?  What they hey, Counselor Elliott?!  What they hey, indeed.

I'll give you some specifics. While I was on my way home from work, I received a call from one Thomas O'Lynnger. He informed me that he was on his way home from Chicago via train. Not more than 20 minutes later, I received a phone call from one Rick Lax, who informed me that he was also on his way home. Knowing that Ricky can't stand long car rides and nearly always takes the train to Michigan, I asked him if he knew that he was on the same train as Tom, a mutual acquaintance.
With a thunderous laugh, Rick admitted that he did and that I had found them out. I asked what he was referring to and he began explaining that he and Tom had devised a complex plot wherein he would talk to me for the duration of their trip (approximately 1 hour) all the while dropping clues as to his whereabouts, eventually leading me to the conclusion that I had made within 5 seconds of our conversation.

The question I pose is this: while law school might aid one in developing critical thinking, does it lead one to a better position to judge the critical thinking abilities of others?

No offense, Counselor Lax. I simply meant to suggest that your blog is going through a TRANSITION period. Looks, it's already flooding with comments!

In my defense, Rick told me that I'd be missing the point of the blog if I took more than 4 minutes to write it. Not being a seasoned blogger, I didn't think I'd be able to go into depth without analyzing my writing and reflecting on what I wrote, which would take considerably longer. Hence, the vague but quickly written blog. In addition, much of the story would be better told by Rick, and I believe some of it might make it into future books.

I want to go to the IHOP with Elliott's family.

I think that RickLax's mistake was not realizing the difference between four minutes of lawyer writing and four minutes of doctor writing.

Four minutes of lawyer writing is about a page and a half, single spaced, sized 8 font.

Four minutes of doctor writing is two handwritten sentences. Or maybe it's a dog chasing a telephone? Wait, is that an S or an R? Did you need ambisome or ambian?

I imagine the first draft of this blog-post looked like the picture in this article.
http://consumerist.com/consumer/health/is-your-doctors-bad-handwriting-d...

That's totally true.  I forgot about that.  I feel like kinda  jerk now.