A friend of mine went to a seminar today where they were presented with the above math problem. I look at this problem and I suspect it's some kind of trick question, that I am missing something, but I can't find anything anything devious in it, so I give my friend my first answer and she tells me I am correct.
At the seminar people had all kinds of answers: $200, $67.95, $132.05, $100. People had to explain how they arrived at those answers, and some people got a bit rude in asserting that their answer was correct.
The correct answer is $100.00 (highlight to read). All the men (at least the ones who were willing to say what their answer was) were correct. All the incorrect answers came from women. I imagine that some women also got the correct answer.
What does this say about people in general? What kind of response did you have to this story? What does that say about you?
8 comments:
He is out by the 32.05 he gave in change, plus
the wholesale price of the shoes, plus the 100 he gave the shopkeeper, surely?
Just before the FBI agent arrives, the store owner has just as much money and merchandise as he should. Then he gives the florist one hundred dollars, so the store owner ends up short one hundred dollars.
Thinking again, I was wrong to say "Just before the FBI agent arrives, the store owner has just as much money and merchandise as he should." At that time he was already out $32.05 and the shoes. Maybe Ole Phat Stu has it right. He traded the shoes and $32.05 a counterfeit bill, and then he gave away a hundred dollars, so he's out the shoes and $132.05. Hmm...
The shoe store owner is out whatever he paid for the shoes (at wholesale) plus the time-value of that money plus the $32.05 change that he gave the "buyer".
The shoe store owner is not out the $100 that he gave to the florist because the florist had previously given him $100 in smaller (genuine) bills in exchange for the phony $100.
Cop Car
I think that whoever thought up this "problem" was thinking that the cost of the shoes to the shoe shop owner was $67.95 which would include overhead and time-value of the money. Thus, by adding that cost of the shoes ($67.95) to the change ($32.05) given to the "buyer", and recognizing that the $100 given to the florist merely replaced what the florist had previously provided him, for a total cost to the shoe shop owner of $100.
CC
Okay, here's another analysis. Any loss the shoe seller incurred must be the gain of someone else. The florist gained nothing; he gave the shoe seller $100, and the shoe seller gave him $100. The FBI agent gained nothing of value. The runner lost nothing of value, and gained the shoes and the change. His gain was the shoe seller's loss, so the shoe seller is out the shoes and the change.
It's reasonable to say the shoes and change together are worth $100, and so the shoe seller's loss is $100. Perhaps more exactly, his loss is the shoes and the change.
I was wrong about the florist's $100, and CC is right (as usual).
But the answer in NOT $100, because the replacement price of the shoes is only the wholesale price, say about $34 with a 100% markup to retail price.
I'm going to print, frame, and hang Stu's generous assessment that I was "...right (as usual)."
As anyone who knows us both can attest, this has to be a first for me! Color me pleased - for having been "right" this once and for having such a generous friend.
Cop Car
Post a Comment