This is true for the majority of word problems that exist today. Insofar as this is true, word problems don&#x27;t really do what they set out to do: make the student understand <i>why</i> they need the formula, instead of merely pattern-matching.<p>I&#x27;ve always imagined a particular kind of &quot;interactive word problem&quot;—one you might be able to present in an interview, or on a computerized test—where the word problem itself contains no numbers that fit any sort of formula or pattern. Instead, the student is expected to notice that the real-world situation could be solved by <i>analyzing</i> it with the help of a certain algorithm—if they just <i>had</i> certain pieces of data. From this, they are then expected to <i>ask for</i> those pieces of data. The pieces they ask for might not all be <i>available</i>—in which case they&#x27;re expected to come up with another method. (Also, data can <i>be</i> available that&#x27;s entirely useless for any method of solving the problem.)<p>Imagine an episode of CSI: you see the blood spatter on the floor, the bullet holes in the walls. A real &quot;word problem&quot; would just describe those, then leave it to the student to come to the conclusion that they could use some formula they know to triangulate a source trajectory <i>if</i> they could get positionings for those spatter-marks and holes. Really, the <i>asking for</i> that data—the analysis step—is worth 90% of the mark; successfully applying the formula is just a bonus.