Under-developed logical node

Every year all through elementary and until the end of middle school we had to take state wide standardized tests. You know, the tests that made the #2 pencil famous? The tests that drilled into your head the importance of pressing firmly and coloring the oval completely within the line? It never occurred to me throughout my schooling that these tests were something to take seriously. I consistently came up in the 20th percentile or below in math and it never bothered me one bit. What did I care if the state thought I was dumb? The whole state of Michigan wasn't going to ground me because every answer I gave was option c. (And I guess with 'no child left behind' they better watch out for kids like me who sabotage the system, intentionally or not. Yeah those tests are really working out aren't they?)
The main thing about the tests for me was that they just never made any sense. No, I wasn't a smart ass fuck the system kind of kid, I just hated multiple choice. More often than not I would look at the question, and in my mind, a and b were the answer, or the real answer wasn't listed. I over thought the questions so much that I probably could have written several pages n each of them, but still not come up with the simple answer. My simple logic skills were seriously lacking. I never learned how to come to the obvious conclusion either - maybe because I never tried on the tests, or I managed to get by just fine without the simple answer. In this sense, I am the same little girl who favored the letter c.

I was reminded of all this in the car this morning. R was talking about something having to do with a karioki contest, and how we should enter and try to win a free Macbook or something. Now, I know that he wasn't really serious, but rather blathering on about it like he tends to do about things in the morning. (R is incredibly random in the morning, and it's one of the best things about waking up at 5 - getting to hear him sing ridiculous rhyming songs about whatever they are talking about on the BBC.) So he asks me something to the effect of (I admit I was only partially listening) 'do you think we can alter our voices when we sing?' What did he mean by alter? Alter how? On a computer? By putting things in our mouths? By pretending to sound like other people? And alter when - while we were singing, or after we had sung? These were all not only relevant, but vital questions to understanding what the fuck he was talking about. Even if it was a fake proposition in the first place.
Well, R got annoyed that I didn't understand, and got frustrated that he had to explain it to me five times. I suppose I should have just assumed he wanted to know whether we could change our voices on the computer, but I didn't assume that because there were just too many variables. Even though I know it was a stupid, pointless conversation, I got pissed off. Language is very specific. And very vague. But that's why people have conversation; why people write; why they argue. We do not interact on the level multiple choice. Baby, you are not an oval. I am not a #2 pencil.