It's not even counting from largest, just say out loud third smallest and you should be able to tell that it's a bit of a trick. Lion being the third smallest doesn't make any sense because he's the second smallest.
It's a bit of a trick question but "third smallest" only means "second biggest." It doesn't matter if you go form largest to smallest or smallest to largest.
It does matter, that was the trick. If you go from largest to smallest, The Lion King is third, so you would think he's the third smallest. But it's asking for smallest to largest, so The Lion King would be second, The Dragon of the West is third.
Wow I'm so irritated by this riddle. The phrasing "third smallest" generally refers to from largest to smallest, so the answer would be the lion. Why make a riddle that uses unclear language ><
Are you serious...? No it wouldn't. That would be "third largest". When it asks "what is the third smallest" it is asking which of them is THIRD from the SMALLEST. Obviously. Let me ask you. What would you say if they asked what the smallest was? Or the second smallest? How would asking which is the third in size when referring to how small they are make you start form the LARGEST? That makes no sense. Are you like... not english or something? I don't undrstand your logic. This is how it is, okay?
EAST DRAGON is FIRST largest and FOURTH smallest. WEST DRAGON is SECOND largest and THIRD smallest. LION is THIRD largest and SECOND smallest. PRINCE is FOURTH largest and FIRST smallest. This is rather obvious. You try to berate a sentence that makes 100% sense. WTF?
PSN IDs: VanilleFang , VanilleFang2 , VanilleFang3 - There's three of us! :O VanilleFang = Main.