What are some examples of challenging logical puzzles and questions?

[physixguru]

RE: the boomerang answer to the last conudrum:

If she throws the boomerang OUT of the window then upon its return it will enter INTO the room. Of course someone can fall in any direction when hit by something it is somewhat unlikely that a woman who was expecting a boomerang to return through the window to get hit by it then fall in the direction from whence it came?

Better solution: she throws the boomerang but it doesn't quite reach her on its return so she stretches to try and catch it and falls to her death.

Anyway, for the current conudrum my first answer is the obvious one:

The pharmacist sabotages the husband's plot by replacing the drug asked for with a some substance that will not harm his wife but cause her to ill health sufficient to goto A & E where it would become apparent to the doctors that something shifty was going on, the police are called and the husband reveals all as he can't take the pressure.

Seems you have not read the word ' unexpectedly ' in the question.You missed the trick
friend.Anyways,i posted the answer which is considered the smartest of all.It is no solution of mine.

Anyways your answer ,for the pharmacist question is the most satisfactory of all, and you deserve 8 points for it.

 

[physixguru]

The pharmacist kills the guys wife.

Dear Kurdt
Again ,your answer is regarded as very logical by many, but again the pharmacist never knows the man's address or so,and as the puzzle wants, the pharmacist wants to prevent a murder by the man.I consider it as the most logical, anyways.

Kurdt:6 points.

 

[Borek]

Got it. Pharmacist sold bottle covered with super glue. Husband is glued to the bottle and he can't kill his wife nor the pharmacist. They run to Alaska and live long and happy.

 

[physixguru]

The answer considered the most smart of all because of no assumptions:

The pharmacist gives the man a cup of coffee to drink while he's waiting for the cash memo. After the man has drunk the coffee, the pharmacist says, "There was poison in that coffee. I'll give you the antidote if you write a signed statement that you were planning to kill your wife. I'll keep the confession; if anything happens to your wife, I'll give it to the police."

This answer is not mine.It was asked at IBM interview center,California.Regarded as the smartest because of no assumptions at all.

Question closed.

 

[physixguru]

Got it. Pharmacist sold bottle covered with super glue. Husband is glued to the bottle and he can't kill his wife nor the pharmacist. They run to Alaska and live long and happy.

Cool, Borek,
Anti-gluing solutions available even in Nigeria.Had the pharmacist followed your advice,the man would have freed his hands and cuts the chemist into pieces for playing a prank.

 

[physixguru]

CURRENT STANDINGS:

Jimmy-13 points
Kurdt-11 points
Neu-8 points.
Andre-10 points
Moonbear-5 points
Gokul-6 points
Gear300-5 points
DyslexicHobo-10 points

 

[physixguru]

Here comes the next one for all the people crying for so called "true logic":

Easy one for all,

Two fathers and two sons went fishing. Each caught exactly one fish and yet there were only three fish caught. Why?

 

[Squall84]

Because there are only one GRANDFATHER, one FATHER and one SON..
FATHER is also son to the GRANDFATHER and GRANDFATHER is also father to the FATHER

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The answer considered the most smart of all because of no assumptions:

The pharmacist gives the man a cup of coffee to drink while he's waiting for the cash memo. After the man has drunk the coffee, the pharmacist says, "There was poison in that coffee. I'll give you the antidote if you write a signed statement that you were planning to kill your wife. I'll keep the confession; if anything happens to your wife, I'll give it to the police."

This answer is not mine.It was asked at IBM interview center,California.Regarded as the smartest because of no assumptions at all.

Question closed.

This solution is horrible. The man signs the document and then kills his wife. The pharmacist goes to jail for poisoning the man with coffee. The man accuses the pharmacist of poisoning both him and his wife and uses the note and the fact that he signed it under duress as proof.

Or he simply kills his wife and goes to jail for it. The puzzle said that the pharmacist ensures that he can't kill his wife. 0 points.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A man eats a piece of fruit given to him by his wife and which he should not have eaten. Later another man posts to the Physics Forums.

 

[Jordan Joab]

The answer considered the most smart of all because of no assumptions:

The pharmacist gives the man a cup of coffee to drink while he's waiting for the cash memo. After the man has drunk the coffee, the pharmacist says, "There was poison in that coffee. I'll give you the antidote if you write a signed statement that you were planning to kill your wife. I'll keep the confession; if anything happens to your wife, I'll give it to the police."

This answer is not mine.It was asked at IBM interview center,California.Regarded as the smartest because of no assumptions at all.

Question closed.

Except the husband doesn't care because he really hates that woman and ends up killing her anyways. Now we know why IBM couldn't do what Microsoft did.



Jordan Joab.

 

[Kurdt]

Boy would the pharmacists face be red if he didn't confess and he got done for murder.

 

[neu]

I don't care I got 8 points!

Logic should be applicable to any scenario, and scenarios exist with apparently different logical outcomes. I think your premise is right physixguru, but as jimmy and Jordan point out, your last solution does contain the assumtion that the husband is deterted from murdering his wife if he thinks he'll be found out. You need this assumtion in order to qualify the answer to the question asking that the pharmascist ENSURES the husband does not commit the murder.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Boy would the pharmacists face be red if he didn't confess and he got done for murder.

Considering that he apparently hasn't the evidence to take to the police and this is all intuition at work then he may have poisoned an innocent man and gone to jail himself.

I think your premise is right physixguru, but as jimmy and Jordan point out, your last solution does contain the assumtion that the husband is deterted from murdering his wife if he thinks he'll be found out.

Likely a legitimate assumption if he is using poison.

Of course assuming he doesn't want to be found out the pharmacist can make a call to the police and if they show up asking questions he knows he will be the prime suspect if he does go through with her murder possibly detering him from action. Works just as well as trying to poison the man and extort a confession with the added benefit of it not being illegal (illegal actions being something I thought the pharmacist wanted to avoid).

 

[Kurdt]

I think people were referring to the fact that the man could confess and get the antidote and then still commit the murder because he was undeterred by the fact the pharmacist had a confession. Some people just aren't bothered at all by things like jail sentences.

 

[Borek]

Logic

 

[physixguru]

Because there are only one GRANDFATHER, one FATHER and one SON..
FATHER is also son to the GRANDFATHER and GRANDFATHER is also father to the FATHER

Great work buddy.You take the accolades.
10 points.

Question closed.

 

[physixguru]

I think people were referring to the fact that the man could confess and get the antidote and then still commit the murder because he was undeterred by the fact the pharmacist had a confession. Some people just aren't bothered at all by things like jail sentences.

I completely agree with you Kurdt.But the pharmacist never knew the man's pyschology.The question asked always how the pharmacist could prevent the murder.He had to do what he could do best.And the answer is really reliable because that was the best the pharmacist could do on his part.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Logic

If Aristototle were alive today he or she would be rolling in his or her grave.

 

[Gokul43201]

The answer considered the most smart of all because of no assumptions:

The pharmacist gives the man a cup of coffee to drink while he's waiting for the cash memo. After the man has drunk the coffee, the pharmacist says, "There was poison in that coffee. I'll give you the antidote if you write a signed statement that you were planning to kill your wife. I'll keep the confession; if anything happens to your wife, I'll give it to the police."

This answer is not mine.It was asked at IBM interview center,California.Regarded as the smartest because of no assumptions at all.

Question closed.

1. Confessions signed under duress are not legally binding,
2. The pharmacist will go to jail for this, for blackmail and reckless endangerment,
3. What if the pharmacist was wrong about the man wanting to kill his wife? OOPS!

I think IBM ought to fire themselves for this.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think IBM ought to fire themselves for this.

What if someone takes the IBM test, finds out what the answer is, suspects someone and then poisons them. If the story that IBM had such a test is not an urban legend, then I doubt IBM's legal department got a look at the test before it was administered.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think IBM ought to fire themselves for this.

Then they could write scripts for Matlock if it weren't off the air.

 

[Squall84]

This pharmacist poisoning the guy question will only has possible solution if the husband is scared of going to jail. It doesn't really make sense to give this type of question if the husband is already prepared to go to jail. It is more of a common sense than assumption unless the question does state that the husband is ready to go to jail

 

[DaveC426913]

Doesn't the question imply that - other than explicitly stated - we should assume the people involved will behave as normally as you or I would? i.e. you or I would, all other things being equal, not wish to go to jail?

 

[Squall84]

Doesn't the question imply that - other than explicitly stated - we should assume the people involved will behave as normally as you or I would? i.e. you or I would, all other things being equal, not wish to go to jail?

If a question need to be explained in detail so that it would satisfy everyone understanding or thinking, all logical question will be very loooonnnggg. So what I meant is although we have to assume that everything or everyone will behave normally, it will make the question simple and easier to understand rather than having everyone to think so differently and cause argument. This is just my simple-minded thinking.;p

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Doesn't the question imply that - other than explicitly stated - we should assume the people involved will behave as normally as you or I would? i.e. you or I would, all other things being equal, not wish to go to jail?

I'm not sure about you but I wouldn not normally wish to poison my wife... I hope. :-/

 

[Squall84]

I'm a loving and caring husband...in the future.

 

[spideyunlimit]

More questions?

 

[physixguru]

It "jimmy" and a few others are taking up my time just for explaining their silly questions in the thread.If you have a damn problem with the solution jimmy,Go talk your brains out with IBM.I work at Motorola, and the conformity of the test holds no doubts.Better talk to the IBM administrators.

No more conflicts with the answer will be entertained by physixguru.I have had a talk with the moderators and anybody looking to argue on the answer,after i have mentioned,they are not mine, will be barred from answering the questions in the thread.

 

[neu]

Hello moto

got any more questions guru?