

Without reading the article(and therefore knowing the desired answer):
No one actually explained why they ate the pineapple. I would say that they wouldn’t have eaten the pineapple due to their amusement, but “annoyed” can be inferred, “hungry” is possible since it’s been a few hours, and “they wanted to” is fine.
As for wisdom, I would argue that the owl(“the” implying that the owl is real, in my interpretation, because I want it to mean that) is the wisest for not having attended this foolish event which wasted everyone else’s time. The hare raced a fruit, the crow had a decent idea but was foolish to claim it so decisively, and the moose couldn’t understand the intention behind a common saying. Of course, the question is about who is the most wise, not about who is wise, so foregoing the owl idea it’s a whole other thing.
Just gotta read the article now and figure out if I’m supposed to be dumb for even trying or whatever lol





Yea, after read the original story shown in the article there was certainly better writing. Like the moral that you shouldn’t back someone just because you think they must be smarter than to challenge a runner to a foot race while having nary a leg in sight. Oh, and I went right by, on purpose, the wise owl trope. But yes, it’s likely there as an answer for that reason.
The whole situation’s a mess. I often get in trouble, even at 30 years old, for “asking too many questions” or wanting more detail. Even in French class yesterday the teacher was asking us to form opinions on headlines and I was arguing because I cannot form an opinion based on a headline. I understand the exercise was a language one, but it still matters.