Mentor
Blog Entries: 4

## iq 130+ simple but confusing brain teaser.

 Quote by Kittel Knight Yes, but in this case what would be the meaning of saying twice(!) the ring is $70? Nothing. I'm just getting nitpicky with the wording. The correct question would be what would be the anticipated, or projected loss. The real, or actual loss is unknown since we weren't told how much the ring cost the jeweler.  Quote by Kittel Knight 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!  When I get into work I'm gonna get some friends together and act this out -- just to settle it once and for all...  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.  loss=$70 ring + $100 paid to his neighbor gain=$70 in change from his neighbor net= $100  Quote by moe darklight 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.
 $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.

 Quote by moe darklight $200 gross loss and$100 net loss. the wording of the question implies gross loss.
you can't convince me! muahahaha
 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.
 $200  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  Quote by regor60 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. ;)

 Quote by Werg22 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
 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.  Blog Entries: 1 Recognitions: Gold Member 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.  Quote by Evo 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.
 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