Since I am indeed Obsessed with Star Trek, I have gone through every question in this book and believe more than 3% of them are wrong. Below I list the questions I think are wrong, along with the wrong answer the book thinks is right. Just Plain Wrong Questions: 0046 – B 0104 – B 0176 – C 0217 – B 0239 – C 0268 – B 0318 – C 0330 – C 0399 – A 0407 – A 0504 – A 0506 – B 0528 – C 0536 – A 0561 – B 0566 – A 0579 – D 0580 – A 0582 – B 0630 – B 0668 – A 0669 – D 0671 – D 1007 – C 1054 – C 1067 – A 1097 – C 1154 – C 1159 – C 1191 – D 1193 – D 1257 – C 1340 – B 1374 – D 1487 – C 1524 – B 1535 – C 1559 – D 1840 – C 1865 – D 1919 – C 1954 – B 2172 – C 2231 – A 2232 – B 2278 – C 2421 – A Trick Questions / More Than One Correct Answer / TYPO / Just Really Not Fair: 0326 – C 0334 – A 0540 – C 0577 – B 0587 – B 0650 – B 0741 – C 0760 – A 0774 – D 0787 – C 0815 – B 0838 – B 0914 – A 1011 – A 1041 – C 1170 – D 1221 – C 1283 – B 1354 – C 1408 – B 1450 – B 1456 – A 1458 – B 1495 – B 1589 – A 1729 – A 1816 – D 1820 – A 1821 – D 1845 – B 1958 – C 2026 – B 2079 – D 2158 – C 2170 – C 2240 – C 2365 – B 2389 – B 2420 – D 2500 – B
Yeah, unless we have the book, your OP is rather meaningless. Perhaps if you write out the question they ask, what they claim is the correct answer and what you think is the right answer, we could discuss it better.
I noticed one question that was wrong (can't recall it now), but I haven't been treating the book as anything more than a diverting amusement. There are a lot of questions. A few mistakes are bound to crop up (though you do list a surprising number).
As someone who has written Trek trivia books (though not the one the OP is referring to), I can say that when typos and typesetting issues happen, it is very frustrating to the author as well, not just the reader. For example, I had an answer key correct on a question when I turned it in and somehow in the publishing process that answer key was rearranged incorrectly and got published with that mistake in it. I fielded multiple complaints from readers who said "you didn't even know THAT?!" Um, yes, I knew it, it was correct when I turned it in, but mistakes happen, mmkay? So before hurling insults, please consider that even those in publishing are human and mistakes happen.
I got this for Xmas but haven't started going through it. That being said, I just went to your first question listed, and yup - it is wrong. I do agree with 'Harvey', though. While errors are bound to occur, it does seem to be a very large number listed.
Indeed, one cannot help but be genuinely shocked at how large a number appear to be inaccurate. But then, is this trivia book officially approved of by the kind folks at CBS/Paramount?
Okay, just tried this one. The question is asking who is the space pioneer met in "Metamorphosis" (TOS) and the answer should be Zefram Cochrane, of course, but the device insists it was Stephen Hawking. The other two choices were Jonathan Archer and Buzz Aldrin. I guess out of 2,500 questions a few errors are inevitable. Not feeling obsessed enough to check 'em all, though. Of the "Trick Questions / More Than One Correct Answer / TYPO / Just Really Not Fair" questions, 0326 asks what is a Galaxy class vessel's maximum warp without interference from a Q entity. C (10) would be correct (although I think VOY's "Threshold" clarified it was more like 9.99999999, or you evolved into an amphibious creature). The other options are 8, 9 and 14.1. There have been many ST trivia books over the decades, but yes this one is licensed. It uses the ST logo, and official b/w studio shots all through it. There are thank yous to John Van Citters and his team at CBS Consumer Products.
Warp 10 is not the correct answer at all, because it's not an actual warp velocity. It's just shorthand for infinite speed, which by definition can never be reached. (It's a silly and confusing idea to use a finite number to represent infinity, but that's because Roddenberry asserted the "Warp 10 limit" before its actual meaning got settled on, so it's kind of a hodgepodge.) A Galaxy-class vessel's maximum sustainable warp velocity is 9.6. Higher warp factors can be sustained for limited periods.
Well, that's the problem with simple multiple choice. The first TNG Writer's Bible discussed that maximum Warp 10 thing. That's obviously what they've used to set the question. None of the four choices specify 9.6 (and, as you said, they exceeded that at times), so you can only really choose Warp 10. Simple 9 wouldn't be correct. Aren't you usually allowed to "round up" a decimal answer if the increment is over 0.5?
But "rounding up" doesn't apply to Warp 10, because it's specifically and explicitly defined as infinite velocity. You can't round a finite number up to infinity. The whole point of Warp 10 is that it cannot be reached. It's not a maximum (the highest quantity that can be reached) but a mathematical limit (a quantity that can be drawn arbitrarily close to but never actually reached). The question is simply badly written and none of its answers are correct. Although, like I said, the decision to use a finite number to represent infinite speed was quite simply a bad idea on the part of TNG's makers, because it's been confusing people for nearly a quarter-century now.
Since Voyager and Prometheus were pushing the top speeds of the fleet I tend to assume Warp 9.99 or 9.999 to be the absolute speed a ship can travel at on the new scale. With Warp 14.1 being achieved twice I think in TOS and it's older scale going to higher numbers, I think the infinity speed was 15, with 14.99 being the top ship speed on the 'old' scale. Which is odd, since 10 (new) and 15 (old) would have been the same value of actual speed, there must have been some other reason to divide the measurement of the increments up into different numbers, a different "gearbox" system of energy delivery to the nacelles in the old and new ships? I'm off to bed, have fun working it out though.
I wouldn't pick anything. I'd point out that the question was improperly written in the first place and that none of the offered answers is correct.
I thought the old system was based on the cubed numbers. So warp 1 was cx1, warp 2 was cx8 warp 3 was cx27, etc.
It was not necessarily my intention to get a long discussion going with people that didn't have this book. I just wanted to put a list out their of "known" bad answers so that obsessed people using the book could be forewarned. Although I would be willing to discuss particular bad questions if someone wants to. Any trek in a storm and all that. And I didn't mean to imply that this was the fault of the writer, or even editor. Sometimes things just happen. I didn't try and point blame; just state the errors that exist as I see them.
But the question was specifically about the Galaxy class. There was no "infinity speed" on the old scale. The concept that there was a warp number representing infinity never existed until the early seasons of TNG. (Note that in TNG's "Where No One Has Gone Before," Geordi said "We're passing warp 10," so clearly warp 10 had not yet been defined as infinity.) In the animated episode "The Counter-Clock Incident" from 1974, there was a reference to an alien ship reaching warp 36. In theory, yes. That was the explanation given in behind-the-scenes references (including The Making of Star Trek, apparently, though it mislabeled warp 3 as 24c instead of 27), but it wasn't consistent with what was actually stated onscreen. For instance, the warp velocities implied in "That Which Survives," where it was stated that it would take 11.33 hours to cover 990.7 light-years at warp 8.4, gives a value of 766,482 times the speed of light for that warp factor, while the warp factor cubed formula gives only 592.7c. But then, the formula given in TNG-era references (warp factor to the power of 10/3 for warp 1-9, an arbitrarily drawn asymptotic curve to infinity for 9-10) didn't correspond to onscreen evidence either. As with the TOS sources, the formula gave velocities far slower than what was generally indicated onscreen. For instance, by the published warp charts, it would take weeks to get from Earth to Deep Space 9 even at maximum warp, probably a couple of months at cruising speed, even if we go by the "small Federation" model in Star Charts. But onscreen it seems to be a matter of days. And Voyager's estimated journey time of 75 years to cover 70,000 light-years would represent an average warp factor of nearly 8 on the published scale, which doesn't make sense considering how much time they spent stopped at various planets, and how their stated warp velocities were usually much lower. So really, it's best to ignore the published warp charts, since the writers clearly did.