1. A man jumps off a 100 foot tall bridge. What additional information do you need to determine if he'll die?

Within what degree of confidence? He could have a parachute of some form, or a bungee cord or there could be some form of trampoline to break the fall.

Moreover, you miss the point of the original quote. The question relies on standard assumptions about how humans learn and absorb values. Since humans are very complicated entities, understanding explicitly what assumptions we make about them can be helpful.

8 possible outcomes, not 27

27 if you allow for "no effect", which you should.

If all such questions are effective in making you open your eyes, question your assumptions and upvote away, well, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the nature of "rationality".

It's true that you can construct similar questions in other domains.

But the questions you posed are different from that in the quote because it refers to a:

-more common situation with a
-more common inference that is
-more often poorly grounded and hinges on complex aspects of human sociality, which are
-more relevant to our everyday lives because of the
-more frequent occurrence of similar situations.

See also Richard's further remarks.

The rationality issue involved in the quote is one of how you come to a conclusion, and I think it's fair to say you might have missed some of the factors that come into play regarding manipulation of children, which Richard explains. There's a difference between

a) "What does your gut tell you would happen?", and
b) "What information should you use to justifiably reach a conclusion about what would happen?"

You were answering a), while the question was asking b).