It's not really true that "more information is given in the second question". Maybe explicitly. But we all assume a fair die in the first question (you do even say "random number generator"). So the "additional" information in the second question is really just different information.
If you limited the first prompt to saying that the mean is 3.5, more people would have the same reaction to both questions, i.e. there are multiple ways to achieve a mean of 3.5 or 4.5.
I really disagree. It's a large jump to make in the first question, to go from no information to assuming the die must be exactly fair. That's not given in the problem. The fact that people *assume* that is exactly the point: people naturally move from no information to a uniform distribution. But if you give them more information, it's harder to see what to do.
It's not really true that "more information is given in the second question". Maybe explicitly. But we all assume a fair die in the first question (you do even say "random number generator"). So the "additional" information in the second question is really just different information.
If you limited the first prompt to saying that the mean is 3.5, more people would have the same reaction to both questions, i.e. there are multiple ways to achieve a mean of 3.5 or 4.5.
I really disagree. It's a large jump to make in the first question, to go from no information to assuming the die must be exactly fair. That's not given in the problem. The fact that people *assume* that is exactly the point: people naturally move from no information to a uniform distribution. But if you give them more information, it's harder to see what to do.