This is why I don't always trust BOL to give me a straightforward and direct answer.
For example, under the topic "Operator Precedence (Transact-SQL)" it states "Operators have the precedence levels shown in the following table. An operator on higher levels is evaluated before an operator on a lower level."
My question with this then is "what defines a higher level" ?
The table then goes on to show * (Multiply), / (Division) on level 2 AND + (Add), - (Subtract) on level 3.
Since the levels are shown an ascending order, apparently level 2 is really meant to be a higher level than level 3 since it is physically higher in the list ??
The BOL documentation would have made more sense if the levels had been renumbered and shown in descending order so that the "higher" level is really the "higher" level both numerically and also by the physical location of the level within the table.
Here's what the current table looks like in BOL....
1 ~ (Bitwise NOT)
2 * (Multiply), / (Division), % (Modulo)
3 + (Positive), - (Negative), + (Add), (+ Concatenate), - (Subtract), & (Bitwise AND)
4 =, >, , !< (Comparison operators)
5 ^ (Bitwise Exclusive OR), | (Bitwise OR)
8 ALL, ANY, BETWEEN, IN, LIKE, OR, SOME
9 = (Assignment)
I only got the QOD correct because I tried it myself first. But if I had relied on BOL, I would have gotten it wrong.