That he always opens a door that is not the contestant's choice is a necessary implication of saying that he opens "another" door. That he opens a door containi

That he always opens a door that is not the contestant's choice is a necessary implication of saying that he opens "another" door. That he opens a door containing a goat is similarly implicated. It's not even an implication, really; it's just definitional in vernacular English. And in any event, any of the academics writing in would have been perfectly familiar with the semantic structure of such logic puzzles. Also, most of the population of the country would have been familiar with the game show. Let's Make a Deal was one of the most popular programs on television. Even if they didn't particularly like it, people didn't have much of a TV program selection back then. And even if someone didn't regularly watch TV, it's likely they would have seen it and been familiar w/ the rules regardless simply because it was so widely watched around them. The vehemence of the respondents may even have been an effect of their familiarity, unable to recognize and accept that they'd missed a crucial analytical element after having watched the show so many times before. What makes the puzzle counterintuitive, IMO, is that you're actually answering two different questions: the first before the host makes his selection, and the second (the only one that matters) after he makes his selection. Developing the habit of rigorously "updating your priors"--that is, recognizing when the available evidence has changed, requiring a reassessment--is an applied skill that even experts aren't particularly good at. (Nor was I the first time I read the problem.) The real-life narrative structure actually makes for a great logic puzzle as people are primed to miss the final constraint (his selection) for what it is. They're used to analyzing static situations, or a series of linked static situations--solve X correctly to solve Y. That makes the Monty Hall Problem peculiarly distinct from the typical type of logic puzzle that simply includes a misleading, irrelevant constraint or requires resolving a complex set of constraints.