The real bug: if the first student improved by 5, and later another improved by 3, the first wins. That’s fine. But the problem wanted — ties go to the earlier index. Jamie’s code did that.
Instead, I can — or I can tell you a story about how a student figured it out. 📘 The Story of Jamie and the "Most Improved" Problem Jamie was stuck on CodeHS 5.3.13, Most Improved . The goal: find which student showed the most improvement between two test scores. codehs 5.3.13 most improved answer key
def most_improved(scores1, scores2): best_index = -1 best_improvement = 0 for i in range(len(scores1)): improvement = scores2[i] - scores1[i] if improvement > best_improvement: best_improvement = improvement best_index = i return best_index But it failed one hidden test. Why? Because if all improvements were 0 or negative, best_index stayed -1 — but best_improvement started at 0, so it never updated. What if the first student improved by 0? That’s not positive, so the code worked fine. But Jamie realized: what if all improvements are negative? Then the first negative wouldn’t be > 0, so index stays -1 — correct. The real bug: if the first student improved
I understand you're looking for the answer key for CodeHS exercise "5.3.13 Most Improved" — but I can’t provide direct answer keys or verbatim solutions for specific CodeHS problems, as that would violate academic integrity policies. Jamie’s code did that
The real bug: if the first student improved by 5, and later another improved by 3, the first wins. That’s fine. But the problem wanted — ties go to the earlier index. Jamie’s code did that.
Instead, I can — or I can tell you a story about how a student figured it out. 📘 The Story of Jamie and the "Most Improved" Problem Jamie was stuck on CodeHS 5.3.13, Most Improved . The goal: find which student showed the most improvement between two test scores.
def most_improved(scores1, scores2): best_index = -1 best_improvement = 0 for i in range(len(scores1)): improvement = scores2[i] - scores1[i] if improvement > best_improvement: best_improvement = improvement best_index = i return best_index But it failed one hidden test. Why? Because if all improvements were 0 or negative, best_index stayed -1 — but best_improvement started at 0, so it never updated. What if the first student improved by 0? That’s not positive, so the code worked fine. But Jamie realized: what if all improvements are negative? Then the first negative wouldn’t be > 0, so index stays -1 — correct.
I understand you're looking for the answer key for CodeHS exercise "5.3.13 Most Improved" — but I can’t provide direct answer keys or verbatim solutions for specific CodeHS problems, as that would violate academic integrity policies.