Iq 130+ simple but confusing brain teaser.

[gooksahn]

you are a jewelry shop owner.

one day a customer comes into 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.

 

[J77]

$130 ?

 

[Valayar]

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 $.

 

[J77]

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...?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

 

[belliott4488]

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?

 

[akhil982]

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 $. That makes a total loss of 100$

 

[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

 

[Sleek]

$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.

 

[belliott4488]

:/ 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?

 

[daveb]

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.

 

[moe darklight]

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.

 

[Kittel Knight]

He has accepted a bad voucher. So he lost the $100. Thats all.

 

[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.

 

[Kittel Knight]

Has no one considered the fact that as a business the ring would not have cost him $70

Read again:

...
question: What is your total loss? (the ring indeed is $70)

 

[Evo]

Read again:

If the ring only cost the jeweler $20, his "real" loss on the ring was only $20, not $70.

 

[Kittel Knight]

Yes, but in this case what would be the meaning of saying twice(!) the ring is $70?

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[moe darklight]

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]

When I get into work I'm going to get some friends together and act this out -- just to settle it once and for all...

 

[michael5311]

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]

loss= $70 ring + $100 paid to his neighbor
gain= $70 in change from his neighbor

net= $100

 

[Couperin]

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]

$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]

$200 gross loss and $100 net loss.

the wording of the question implies gross loss.

you can't convince me! muahahaha

 

[Werg22]

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]

$200

 

[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

 

[Werg22]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There are no opinions involved when it comes to logic.

 

[regor60]

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

You're counting the $30 twice. The $30 you gave to the customer wasn't yours...it was the baker's. When you refunded the baker his $100, that $30 you gave the customer now becomes your cost.

Two separate transactions at work here.

Look at it this way, the net result. The baker is made whole, no out of pocket for him. The customer walks away with a ring that would have fetched $70 from a legitimate buyer, plus $30 cash and he gave the seller nothing. Who financed that ? The seller.

There is no such thing as a potential cost, just like there is no such thing as a paper loss. A loss is either realized (cash) or unrealized (security or item exchangeable for cash) but both forms of loss are "real". Just because someone hasn't exchanged the item for cash doesn't change its value.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

what puzzles me is that the first part of the OP says that I don't have any cash, but yet I still give the baker his $100.00 back after selling the ring... so here's how I would put it;

I don't loose a penny, not a cent.

Why ?, well the client was still in my shop when the baker angrily stormed in. The fake voucher was shown and both the money and the ring were given back as the perplexed customer blabered some excuse and promised to come back some other time to buy the ring, this time with real cash.

VE

 

[Werg22]

There is no such thing as a potential cost, just like there is no such thing as a paper loss. A loss is either realized (cash) or unrealized (security or item exchangeable for cash) but both forms of loss are "real". Just because someone hasn't exchanged the item for cash doesn't change its value.

What do you mean there is no such thing as potential cost (and I said potential loss by the way)? Potentially, the jeweler lost $100. Maybe no one would have bought the ring, so he at least lost $30 + value of the ring. I guess that I what I want to say is that the question asks for the unrealized loss.

 

[lahmannrobert]

Most people would say 200 by way of simple math and no thought, however 100 is total loss. Don't forget pride...to some it's priceless.

 

[ManDay]

100$

Make it easier by just thinking that he robbed the shop-owner and gave him a cookie as excuse.

• Cookie: +0$
• Being robbed a ring for 70$ and 30$ change: -100$
• Adjacent shopowner who lends you money: Priceless

Other solution

• Money can neither dissappear nor be created. Therefore the money "in the system" has to be the same after the process. The voucher is worth 0$. The adjacent shopowner doesn't gain any profit from the deal, whereas the fraud walks away with 100$. Hence, 100$ left the system of Shopowner and adjacent Shopowner.

Another

• The fraud brings a fake voucher which is 0$ and swaps it for 100$. Therefore 100$ are taken away from the shopowner

PS: Thats certainly not 130+. At least not with respects to grown men. A 12yo, that's what the 130 minimum may apply to.

 

[Werg22]

But what irritates me here is that we're assuming that the jeweler would have otherwise sold the ring. He at least lost $30 + value of the ring - we don't know anything else.

 

[regor60]

But what irritates me here is that we're assuming that the jeweler would have otherwise sold the ring. He at least lost $30 + value of the ring - we don't know anything else.

$30 plus what he could have sold the ring for, yes. I don't think we're saying different things, I just think it's reasonable to assume the words "$70 ring" mean $70 is what he could have sold it for

 

[RonL]

And i used to worry about fitting in on this forum

 

[Werg22]

$30 plus what he could have sold the ring for, yes. I don't think we're saying different things, I just think it's reasonable to assume the words "$70 ring" mean $70 is what he could have sold it for

No disagreement there. I am well aware that $70 is the price of ring - I was speaking of its intrinsic value i.e. $70 - profit made on the ring. In any case, this a difference in the interpretation of the question rather than in the interpretation of the problem. We can't clear the ambiguity unless the OP makes a clarification.

 

[P4PPY]

He's a business owner right?

If you have experienced a major property loss due to damage or theft, and you are not reimbursed by your insurance policy, you may qualify for a deduction on your federal taxes.

If I remember correctly, you take the fair market value of the item, in this case... let's say he was an honest salesman and the FMV was $70. You then take 5% from that, you're left with $72.50. Then you subtract 10% of your adjusted gross income and you can deduct the remainder.

If the owner didn't make anything that year... he only lost $33.50. ($30 from the neighbor, and 3.50 negated by deduction calculations.)

I seriously doubt the $30 will be recouped of course... unless he's good buddies with the neighboring business owner. =)

Simple answer though... $100

 

[brettlee]

Hey guys i have two ideas. One is a theory.
the other is a possible solution.

now let us use gooksahn(the bloke who post this teaser) as the customer with the
voucher. ok this is what happened, gooksahn said "many have answered this wrong"
i think he is using this and "and the ring indeed is $70" to keep us second guessing
our answers. Fact #1 non of us here knows the right answer, and we don't know who gooksahn is reffering to
when he said "many have answered this wrong" because we also don't know the wrong answers he is reffering to.
make sense to me; so I'm going to eliminate everything after the ? mark, because i already know what the
ring cost and i really don't care about the millions who got it wrong because they didn't "think it through".
ok all i need to do is answer the question: What is your total loss?

The theory part folks.
on this beautiful bussiness day gooksahn walks into my shop presented me with a voucher worth $100, but
i was so so broke i didn't have $30 to give him(remember $70 cos of ring minus $100 worth voucher equal $30
bucks i didn't have) now i go to the pastry guy and GAVE HIM THE VOUCHER and i collect my $100.
transaction: i now have the pastry guy $100, i give the ring with $30 ...i am so glad i have money
in my register wow...end of transaction...10 minutes later WHAT!WHAT!WHAT! OH GOD NO I JUST
GOT ROB...lol.

Drama time: 9 minutes 59 second... 1 sec later door slam open pastry guy with a spoon in his hand, this
voucher is blah blah blah... so i APOLOGIZE and GIVE him BACK his $100. Damn that spoon
Important and very: note after the first transaction i only had left with $70 and yet after 10 min i return
the spoon guy $100 magic huh not really.
So within the 10 min i had to make another or several sale/s let that amount be X, but X must be = to $30
or >$30 hope this is clear.

whys. why 10 min and not b4.
why tell him not return the voucher this is important u will see y.
What is my total loss? after i give the pastry guy his money. note this is when i was told the voucher is fake.
1. i give $100 voucher remember the voucher was real at this time, it was like giving 5 single 20s for 1
$100 bill
2. i give a ring($70) + $30 to gooksahn =$100 worth
3. 10 min later $30 from $X plus the $70 to give pastry guy $100
total=$300

This is how i arrive to my loss.
now we know that the voucher is fake this will consider my loss so that is -100 (note here: if the voucher return to me it will
definitely be fake so technically it's a loss,also since pastry guy tells me about the voucher not returning it. let's say the voucher
is real the pastry gain 100 and it's still my loss. we will never know


so i will have to give back the pastry guy his $70 which i can only say 4 sure i have,but i don't have his $30 another -30

next the ring -70 with change -30

-100,-30,-70,-30= for my total loss of $-230. the end


i am really sorry to bored everyone who will read this, let me know what you think "not about what i wrote here because this might be
rubbish" about this teaser. remember to "think it through" just kidding.


The possible solution.
Someone find gooksahn and you know the rest.
...oh not again i don't have any cash in my register...spoon guy noooooooo
this(...) means minutes later.

 

[ValenceE]

I prefer my answer in post #38...

VE

 

[ronterry]

30 bucks, and the ring.

 

[esbo]

30 bucks, and the ring.

Yes that's right, I would say it is a more 70+ IQ question myself.
Certaintly any real shop keeper would have realized he was $100 down ie $30 + a ring
valued at $70.

Or perhaps more simply put he accested a voucher for $100 which was worthless.