# iq 130+ simple but confusing brain teaser.

by gooksahn
Tags: brain, confusing, simple, teaser
 P: 1 you are a jewelry shop owner. one day a customer comes in to buy a $70 ring. He only has a voucher worth$100. you do not have any cash around, so you go next door to the pastry shop and ask the owner to change the $100 voucher for cash. the pastry shop owner gives you the cash. you go back to your shop and give the customer$30 in change along with the ring. 10 minutes later, the pastry shop owner comes in angry and tells you that the voucher is fake, and that he wants his $100 back. you apologize and give him the$100. question: What is your total loss? (the ring indeed is $70) many have answered this wrong. please think it through.  P: 1,157$130 ?
 P: 4 I'd say 100 $. Here is my explanation : Suppose the ring is exactly 100$. Going to plastry shop to exchange the voucher would be useless (has he wouldn't have to give any cash back), but let's do it : he exchanges the voucher for cash, and afterwards the plastry shop owner comes back and takes his money back. Then the jeweler would have lost the price of the ring, which is 70 $. However the ring isn't 100$, it's 70 $. So the jeweler gives back 30$ in cash. Finally, he has lost 70 + 30 = 100 $. P: 1,157 ## iq 130+ simple but confusing brain teaser. I should stick in an explanation -- you lose$70 on the ring, $30 to the customer and$30 to the baker...

or am I missing something as I chomp on my lunch...?
 P: 2,163 Answer: The jeweler lost $100, the customer gained$100, and the baker neither gained nor lost. Assuming the voucher to be a worthless piece of paper, I won't mention it any longer The customer received a $70 ring and$30 cash and gave nothing in return for it. He made $100. The baker gave the jeweler$100 and the jeweler gave the baker $100. Neither the jeweler nor the baker gained nor lost on this transaction. The jeweler gave the customer a$70 ring and $30 cash and got nothing in return for it. He lost$100. eom
 P: 662 I don't get this (and haven't yet looked at jimmysnyder's anwer). If you had no cash at the start, received $100 cash from the baker, then gave$30 to the customer, how did you have $100 to return to the baker? It seems you'd have only$70 cash left. In any case, if we are to assume that somehow you gave the baker $100 back, let's say you wrote him a check, then it sure seems to me that you're out that$100, but that seems like the "obvious" answer to me, so I assume it's wrong. Am I missing something?
 P: 6 You lose 100 $....imagine u lost the voucher(same as fake.) All u did is u borrowed 100$ from neighbour and repaid 100 $to him again. All u lost was ur ring (70$) and additional 30 $. That makes a total loss of 100$
 P: 52 :/ I thought since the Jeweller gave away $100 to the neighbour, plus$70 ring and $30 change to the guy, wouldn't it be$200 all-together? XD
 P: 59 $100 indeed. The owner makes a loss of$70 from the ring. The $100 he received is now only$70 (because he gave $30 to the purchaser). He thus has to throw in$30 from his own pocket. Or a much more simpler way of looking at this is, The customer did not pay the shopkeeper anything (since the coupon was fake). But the Shopkeeper paid the customer (effectively) $70 ring +$30 = $100. P: 662  Quote by momogiri :/ I thought since the Jeweller gave away$100 to the neighbour, plus $70 ring and$30 change to the guy, wouldn't it be $200 all-together? XD No, the$100 he gives to the neighbor is just the same $100 that the neighbor gave him, so his net loss is$100.

The OP said many people get this wrong - is this the mistake they usually make?
 P: 927 Even though the problem says the jeweler doesn't have any cash around but then pays the baker back, i'll ignore that little error. If the jeweler starts with "x" dollars, gets +100 from the baker (for the voucher), and gives the ring and -30 to the buyer, he is left with 70 dollars and no ring. Then when the baker comes back, he pays 100 dollars so is 30 dolalrs in the hole along with the ring.
 P: 411 my answer is $200 due to the wording of the question.— it doesn't matter if the neighbor gave him that money in the first place; the question is "what is his total loss." even if he's giving the$100 to the same person who gave it to him, it was given to him, not lent, therefore he lost it. had the question been "what was his net loss from the transaction," I would've said $100.  P: 106 He has accepted a bad voucher. So he lost the$100. Thats all.
 Mentor P: 25,958 Has no one considered the fact that as a business the ring would not have cost him $70, unless he's crazy, the$70 price would have included a profit. So his "real" loss is unknown, since he might have never been able to sell that ring for $70 to a legitimate customer. P: 106  Quote by Evo Has no one considered the fact that as a business the ring would not have cost him$70
 Quote by gooksahn ... question: What is your total loss? (the ring indeed is $70) Mentor P: 25,958  Quote by Kittel Knight Read again: If the ring only cost the jeweler$20, his "real" loss on the ring was only $20, not$70.
 P: 106 Yes, but in this case what would be the meaning of saying twice(!) the ring is $70? Mentor P: 25,958  Quote by Kittel Knight Yes, but in this case what would be the meaning of saying twice(!) the ring is$70?