iq 130+ simple but confusing brain teaser.


by gooksahn
Tags: brain, confusing, simple, teaser
moe darklight
moe darklight is offline
#19
Oct16-07, 08:54 PM
P: 411
Quote Quote by Kittel Knight View Post
He has accepted a bad voucher. So he lost the $100. Thats all.
nope. I stand by my word. he traded the voucher for $100 (made $100; it does not matter that the voucher is not actually worth the $100; he did make a $100 transaction), then he had to give back the $100 (that's him losing $100 and gaining nothing). then the $100 from the rest of the deal (the 70 + 30) = $200 gross loss and $100 net loss.

the wording of the question implies gross loss.

evo is also right, unless he's a terrible businessman, he would not have payed $70 for something he'll be selling at $70... and what about taxes? percentage of his earnings going towards employees, insurance? ... I dunno, this question is hard to answer without being given all the necessary info. I demand tax return print-outs and receipts!
J77
J77 is offline
#20
Oct17-07, 02:12 AM
P: 1,157
When I get into work I'm gonna get some friends together and act this out -- just to settle it once and for all...
michael5311
michael5311 is offline
#21
Oct17-07, 03:07 PM
P: 3
I agree with belliot

if he didn't have $30 to make change for the 100, then he couldn't pay back the baker. He only has $70 cash.

But assuming he borrowed another $30 or wrote a check, then his loss is certainly $100 and kittle knight has the simplest explanation.
ekrim
ekrim is offline
#22
Oct17-07, 07:05 PM
P: 179
loss= $70 ring + $100 paid to his neighbor
gain= $70 in change from his neighbor

net= $100
Couperin
Couperin is offline
#23
Oct23-07, 09:29 AM
P: 57
Quote Quote by moe darklight View Post
then he had to give back the $100 (that's him losing $100 and gaining nothing).
The jeweler only lost $30 here, because from the $100 he borrowed from the baker, he had $70 of this still left over from the transaction with the customer because he had to give $30 of it away as change. So he only had to dig up 30 extra dollars to repay the baker.

So the jeweler lost the ring + $30.
bimm3r
bimm3r is offline
#24
Oct24-07, 11:57 PM
P: 1
$100

Jeweler makes no money from the sale of these types of rings (I guess its a hobby for him or something).

Given the fact that he only breaks even on sales of this particular ring, he had to shell out $100 to the baker.

Basically the customer made $100 (ring plus $30 change) and the baker got back his loss of $100 which caused him to break even. So where did the $100 come from? The poor jeweler.

Hope that makes sense.
moe darklight
moe darklight is offline
#25
Oct25-07, 08:45 AM
P: 411
Quote Quote by moe darklight View Post
$200 gross loss and $100 net loss.

the wording of the question implies gross loss.
you can't convince me! muahahaha
Werg22
Werg22 is offline
#26
Oct27-07, 09:14 AM
P: 1,520
The question cannot be answered because we are not given how much of a profit does the jeweler make in selling the $70 ring properly. Losing the ring does not amount to losing 70$, it indeed amounts to losing less than that. And selling the ring doesn't amount to gaining $70, it amounts to gaining lesser as well. The jeweler lost (value of the ring) + $30.

Edit: I see Couperin got it right.
grafica
grafica is offline
#27
Jan15-08, 11:56 AM
P: 24
$200
regor60
regor60 is offline
#28
Jan22-08, 01:38 PM
P: 101
There is some confusion displayed here with the concept of the "sunk cost"

The two transactions with the pastry shop owner net out.

The jeweler gave $30 and a ring he could have sold for $70 to the man in exchange for nothing.

It doesn't matter what the jeweler paid for the ring,or any concomitant profit, because what he paid doesn't change whether he sells the ring or gives it away. The marginal transaction is the forgone $70.

Therefore, he has foregone $100
Werg22
Werg22 is offline
#29
Jan22-08, 05:36 PM
P: 1,520
Quote Quote by regor60 View Post
There is some confusion displayed here with the concept of the "sunk cost"

The two transactions with the pastry shop owner net out.

The jeweler gave $30 and a ring he could have sold for $70 to the man in exchange for nothing.

It doesn't matter what the jeweler paid for the ring,or any concomitant profit, because what he paid doesn't change whether he sells the ring or gives it away. The marginal transaction is the forgone $70.

Therefore, he has foregone $100
The loss from his prior to losing the ring fortune is $30 + value of the ring. The loss from potentially selling the ring is $100. The problem is really straight forward if we ignore the $30 - a simple theft of the ring. Having the ring stolen from you makes you (value of the ring) poorer. But had you sold it, you would have been $70 richer than you are now. The $30 just adds to the agony. ;)
regor60
regor60 is offline
#30
Jan22-08, 06:28 PM
P: 101
Quote Quote by Werg22 View Post
The loss from his prior to losing the ring fortune is $30 + value of the ring. The loss from potentially selling the ring is $100. The problem is really straight forward if we ignore the $30 - a simple theft of the ring. Having the ring stolen from you makes you (value of the ring) poorer. But had you sold it, you would have been $70 richer than you are now. The $30 just adds to the agony. ;)
No need to quote me unless you're disagreeing, but it's hard to tell from your post. No point in ignoring the $30 since that's what was "given" away in addition to the ring, leading to the $100 marginal loss. The simplest way to look at it is...gave away the ring, gave away $30
Werg22
Werg22 is offline
#31
Jan22-08, 08:07 PM
P: 1,520
You don't get it. The loss, at least the loss the question is asking for, is $30 + value of the ring. The loss you are talking about is the potential loss.
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#32
Jan23-08, 03:14 AM
P: 2,163
Once the government finds out about this, they are going to make up the jewelers loss out of my pocket. They will increase my taxes by $150, take $50 for administrative costs, give $50 to some rich guy who has nothing to do with this problem (unless they happen to be the ring thief) and the other $50 to the jeweler. See if this isn't how they solve the subprime crisis.
Mk
Mk is offline
#33
Jan23-08, 05:43 PM
P: 2,057
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
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.
Yeah, I was wondering if we're talking about cash or value.
Kaleb
Kaleb is offline
#34
Jan26-08, 10:32 PM
P: 49
Started with 0. Got 70 bucks. Lost 100. Ended up with 30 bucks lost. (and I would consider the ring lost as well as he gained pretty much nothing from it)

In my opinion the 100 dollars fooled with everyone. That was never the jewelers money, thus he never had it until he sold the ring for 70 dollars. I am probably wrong, but this is how I see it.

x = 0+70-100. x = $-30
AFG34
AFG34 is offline
#35
Jan29-08, 12:36 PM
P: 128
130 imo

the customer walks in
you give him the ring, you lose $70
you go to the baker, get $100
give the customer $30, you lose $100 total
you have $70 cash left from the $100 the baker gave you
you give the $70 + an extra $30 back to the baker
you lose $130
Werg22
Werg22 is offline
#36
Jan29-08, 12:38 PM
P: 1,520
There are no opinions involved when it comes to logic.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Simple Harmonic Motion Brain Teaser Classical Physics 2
Brain Teaser #39 Brain Teasers 6
Brain Teaser #38 Brain Teasers 12
Brain Teaser #37 Brain Teasers 4
Brain Teaser #22 Brain Teasers 7