Iq 130+ simple but confusing brain teaser.

[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 disappear 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 referring to
when he said "many have answered this wrong" because we also don't know the wrong answers he is referring 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.

 

[gateman234]

ok,
you start off with $70 (ring)
+$100(banker)= $170
-$70(ring)=$100
-$30(change)=$70
-$100(banker)= -30$
but he started with a ring so total losses = ring+$30

 

[paschalcunnin]

thef

ring $70 change $30 money to baker $100 = $200

 

[paschalcunnin]

sorry it was only $100

 

[moe darklight]

how is this thread longer than some of the advanced physics threads??

yes. we must somehow revive Gauss, for only he can settle this . seriously guys. let's give it a rest.

(I still stand by my "OP didn't specify if by 'loss' he meant net loss or gross loss" opinion *muahaha*)

but seriously guys... c'mawwn