5 Hard Riddles With Simple Answers 👉 Tricky Hardest Riddles with Answers || Episode #5
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 лип 2024
- 5 Most frequently asked quick and tricky JOB INTERVIEW RIDDLES based on lateral logic and presence of mind. Quick and Tricky Puzzles that will surely surprise you. This is the fifth episode of the interview Puzzles and Riddles series.
Below is the list of the Riddles covered in this Episode #3.
Timestamp
0:03 - What's the next picture in the series
0:53 - Circular chain puzzle
1:59 - 6 shot revolver puzzle (cowboy gun puzzle)
3:00 - Car and tyres puzzle
4:24 - Very confusing shopping riddle (shopkeeper puzzle)
The video explains the solution to all the Puzzles and the Logic behind.
Also watch:
10 interview riddles || Episode #1 :
• 10 Interview RIDDLES |...
5 interview Puzzles || Episode #2 :
• 5 Interview PUZZLES ||...
10 Interview RIDDLES || Episode #3 || Intelligence Test
• 10 Interview RIDDLES |...
10 Interview RIDDLES || Episode #4 || Quick & Tricky
• 10 Interview RIDDLES |...
Make sure you pause the video after every puzzle statement, and try to solve it yourself.
You can find Interview Puzzles and difficult logical puzzles frequently asked in Puzzle competitions, on my channel.
If you're interested to learn about hard riddles with simple answers topic , please visit: 👉 / @logicallyyours
This video is presenting "hard riddles with simple answers" subject but we try to cover the subjects:
-riddles with answers
-riddles that will blow your mind
-hardest riddles
Please take 4 minutes to inspect out our video and learn why we are the finest choice regarding hardest riddles...
Hard riddles with simple answers topic is showcased in many videos, but we attempted to offer you the best information in a concise and also understandable video clip.
To like our yt vid, use the like button under the video . To dislike a video, use thumbs down. To reverse your choice, just pick the icon once again.
Thank you for your time in finding out about our services. Please refer to the contact details in the description listed above if you want to call us for any queries at all. You have nothing to lose :)
If you would like to discover even more regarding riddles with answers I suggest you to take a look at our various other video clips : / @logicallyyours
The only distinction between the winners ... And the losers in life is one simple thing: the willingness to take huge action. You have that opportunity here today ... Thank you for viewing, click the link below for more info.
/ @logicallyyours
Please comment below your answers and suggestions. Also LIKE the video and SUBSCRIBE to my channel if you are new. - Розваги
For question number 4... We can say that....we have 5 tyres each with 20000km running capacity...total 100000km running capacity...but we need 4 tyres at a time...so it's 100000/4= 25000kms
What is we had six tyres
@@nishantbrain same 20000*6=120000 divide with 4 that is 30000
The answer to Q1 is not three spots - it is just the poster’s preferred one from several possible answers. For example, four spots is equally valid as an answer: the dice are in sets of 3, the third being the first rotated through 90 degrees then superimposed on the second, giving the answer as 4 spots rotated onto 4 spots, the superimposed image being four spots. There may be other languages where the letters match up for 1-5 but not the sixth.
There's also a possible scenario that numbers are like 3 3 5 4 4, so the next number can even be a 6
I also thought that super imposing answer
Occams Razor says that you ignore complex answers in favour of simple answers
he lost his faith in indian rupee notes
Bitcoin
Yes becoz guy was not an indian...
He may be from lubu lulu island 🏝
No because in question there is "Rs" as a unit of money is written!
The last problem is not confusing as long as we define properly what we mean by loss. I'm no accountant but in cash terms the shopkeeper lost 800 and in terms of goods the bag. If we covert everything into cash he lost 1000. In terms of bags: 5 bags. There's really no mistery to it once you are clear as to what you are refering to.
was bouta leave the same exact comment basically, good job hitting the nail on the head lol
In first riddle, there is another logic may also apply. Logic:-
dice-1 = 3 dots
dice-2 = 3 dots again
dice-3 = 5 dots (which comes next after 4)
dice-4 = 4 dots
dice-5 = 4 dots again
dice-6 = Next No. comes after 5 i.e. 6
So from this logic answer is 6 dots.
Mine was the same 😂
@@manojselvan
That's was one logic, I had given my logic which is also has a unique pattern.
LOL now hope you understand.
Answer is 6
My logic was also the same
@@Singh_itis thats the problem with sequences like this with small samples. It can be a part of literally any sequence. Had he done this for say maybe first 20 numbers the solution would've been unique.
You can also think of it as
3 3 5 3+1 3+1 5 3+2 3+2 5 3+3 3+3 5 3+4 3+4 5 3+5 3+5 5... You get the point
I.e n is a multiple of 3 then term is 3
Else it is double repetition of increasing digits
Yeah 1000, u can easily understand this if u assume that the shopkeeper already had the change
Ankit Surolia bro you are forgetting about the 800 which he gave to lady and the total will be 1800
@@smj735 that is not his loss, he cheated the next shop by giving fake rs and getting money. So his loss is only 1000. With a 1000 fake note u can only lose 1000 rs if you don't have any profit for ur items.
U guys are forgetting about the bag which he gave....it was worth 200
The total loss is 1000 Rs , because he returned 800Rs to the lady and 200 Rs for the item that she bought.Total loss- 800+200=1000..........
The Q1 has multiple correct & logical answers even if options aren't offered, depending on how people looked at it. One: just like in the video. Two: pattern, 3,3,5,4,4,6. Three: opposite dice. In dice, the opposite dots should equal to 7, so the last one could also be a 2.
Q4) Can be solved easier. 100,000 is the distance can be covered by all tires. 4 is the number of tires you can use at any time.
100,000/4 = 25,000
this answer is useful if you are going to use your car with just 1 tire at a time.
Jarell Ibabao No, that would be 100,000
Hahaha, you can't use your car with just one tire, so you need to use 4 tires at the same time.
Jarell Ibabao Exactly, could you explain to me how my answer is wrong?
My answer goes:
20,000 (Maximum distance per tire) * 5 = 100,000 (Total distance covered by all tires)
100,000 / 4 (Maximum allowable tires) = 25,000 (Maximum distance covered by the five tires)
Nice explaination hewa..
1st question my answer is right with the solution
The answer to the first question is 6 based on the arithmetic pattern. In order for three to be an acceptable answer, you have to assume that the interviewee speaks English.The answer to the second question could be 1 if you consider the "number of cuts" to be the number of times I squeeze the bolt cutter, as I could stack the four small chains atop one another and make one cut simultaneously through the end of all four chains.
Well Actually the Answer to the 1st question Can even be "B" by a different approach...:___
If pattern of 2 is rotated clockwise by 90° and merged in 1,the the resultant Pattern will be 3..in this manner if we perform The same with 4 and 5 then the Resultant Will the answer b..
Based on that logic, wouldn't the orientation between 1 and 2 be different? I was thinking of a different rotation pattern and got D then realized that it couldn't be that because the 3 dots would be in a different orientation.
The most simplistic answer to the dice problem is 6. 5 is 2 more than the pair of 3s so 2 more than the pair of 4s would be 6 (D).
At firts I tought it was 1800, then I remembered tht I had forgot the loss of 200 rs worth bag so I thought 2000. Then I realized that 1000 counterfeit was basically like a loan so it doesn't count. So the answer is -800 + -200 worth bag = 1000
The loan was not returnable so that would be considered as loss
@@educational2164 And probably is in the billionaires club, but in concrete fact after the whole incident, he was down 1000 and no more.
1)Bag loss=200rs
2)Lady taken away cash = 800rs
3)He return 1000rs with adding 200 he had after change given to lady tha means =800
200+800+800=1800
Just 1000. At the end of the day that's all he has to pay back. The bag was paid for when he got the change
As John said, 1000.
Lady got 200rs bag and 800rs cash = 1000
Next door shop keeper lost nothing.
So the shop keeper could not lose more than 1000rs
Starting point: Shop keeper has a bag = 200rs
after purchase they have 200rs
After returning 1000rs they have -800rs and since they doesn't have bag anymore it adds up -200rs
=-1000rs = loss of 1000rs.
I think answer is 2000......because shopkeeper gives 800 ruppees to lady + 200 ruppee bag+ exchange of 1000 ruppee
@@Bitsar but he gives 800 rp to woman and takes 200rp to pocket thats why 1800
Idiot
Its Rs 2000 as the shopkeeper gave a bag of 200 and 800 cash to the lady and now he will return 1000 to other shopkeeper
If my answer is correct pls reply sir
I also got the same answer....
Same
3:17 For Q.4, just imagine rotating the tires every km. Clearly they'll all fail at basically the same time. So 20,000*5 tires divided by the four driven on = 25,000.
but that is impossible because if all tires fails at one times the cars can not move on a single tyre. we have to replace first tyre on by one to all tiers within 20,000 km.
The dice test is a lateral thinking test. As with all lateral thinking tests one can solve using other ways of thinking. I say "C" is also a correct answer. Sequence TTFFF... (three three five four four...) look on the QWERTY keyboard... TT is twice the fifth on 1st row F three times the fourth on second row... C the third on third row! ... sequence would need to be CCCC... lateral thinking needs imagination... in a way many possible answer... and yes the arithmetic answer 6 is also correct...
Yes I also got the same answer
The answer is 1000/- because a person given amt to other shopkeeper 1000/- , & his 200/- cost of bag was recovered by getting 200/- back.
He also lost 200 in assets from the lady
@@reivajwinter4240 Dear which asset? Means Bag.
I supposed the answer to be 4...! Reason is if I overlap the first dice on second dice like a page of book the final image formed will be like the third dice.. similarly if overlap the 4th and 5th dice final image should be a 4 on dice...!
I had the same thinking
& I supposed it to be 6..
3 dots(odd) , 3 dots(odd) , 5 dots (3+2)(odd) , then 4 dots (even) , 4 dots (even), 4+2= 6 dots (even)
200 as a asset , 800 as change and 1000 as money for the fake note
I would say 1000 is the correct answer
Explaination:-
1. Let's count what he received
1000rs fake note - Value 0rs
1000rs change - value 1000rs
Iska pocket mai 1000rs hai abhi
2. Let's count what he lost
200rs bag
800rs change
1000rs change to next shopkeeper for fake note
Total amt - 2000rs
So let's count the total loss
1000-2000= 1000rs
Why you subtract 1000
@@taarezameenpar3832 See bro, I will simplify for you. Jo change dusra shopkeeper se leke aaya wo settlement ho gaya, So there no profit, no loss.
Whatever he lost was only to that lady which was value of 1000(200rs bag+800rs change).
So loss is 1000 - Simple
Wo fake note ka value 0 hai, so wo fake note ka baat dimag se hatado
First is ‘4’ because adding the pips on the first two with one rotated 90 degree will be a ‘5’, but since ‘4’ are symmetric it will remain a ‘4’.
But by that logic rotating the second and third dice then merging would give you 5 again so dice 4 should have been 5, and so would the 5th dice and so one for infinite.
The shopkeeper tracks down the lady and took matters at his own hands and got the bag back with some blood stains plus the 800 with interest.
He basically gave away the bag + 800 to the lady. So that makes 1000 loss. From the next shop he received 1000 and gave back 1000 eventually. So no net loss there.
So the answer is 1000
No, because the 800 he gave in change was never his. He exchanged a 1000-rupee note (which wasn't his and cost him nothing) for smaller notes. He kept 200 and the counterfeiter took the other 800.
When the shop next door came to take back their money, the shopkeeper only has Rs. 200 to give. The other 800 is riding in the purse of the counterfeiter. The shopkeeper suffers the loss of Rs. 200 which he received as payment for the bag. The shop next door suffers a loss of Rs. 800, unless they can catch the crook.
@@noodle_fc But It says that the other shopkeeper took his money back. I think we are supposed to assume it came out of the till of the shopkeeper who took the phony bill.
@@davidhitchen5369 If he had 800 already in his till why go next door to break the 1000? "His money"-800 of which the customer has carried away.
I dunno, it seems to me if the answer is 1000 it's nothing but a math problem, and not a difficult one, either. Why call that a riddle when it's indistinguishable from any word problem in a 10-year-old's textbook?
Have you heard the riddle about the bus that picked up four passengers at the first stop, then picked up another three while one got off at the second? It's a real brain-melter. :/
Except that he gave the lady Rs. 800 of that. (Edit) - I was wrong. Got fooled by the zero sum transaction with the neighboring shop.
@@noodle_fc Suppose he only had 1000's. I think you bring up a good point though. The question is somewhat ambiguous because it doesn't say how this is handled. I free very confident saying the net loss is $1,000. I'm not confident how it is disbursed among the victims. The net gain for the thief was $800 cash + $200 merchandise.
Chain riddle was the best
Lady gain 1000 rs profit, indirectly shop keeper loss 1000 rs
Short and simple answer bro
Loss of a 1000 rupees. After the initial transaction there was no movement in his asset level since he did not sell it for a profit. But then he had to repay a 1000 rupees to the neighbour.
But if you continue the story, he then hired an assassin for 500 rupees to track down the woman and reclaim the initial 1000 rupees as well as the handbag so all in all he would have lost 300 rupees.
+1000 - 200 - 800 - 1000 - 500 + 1000 + 200 = -300
T'as oublié que c'est le jour où il paye son loyer et qu'il dois racheter du sopalin.
Assassin for 500 rs only !!!!!! Oh god it's so cheap gimme the contact no of him 😎
The money he took from other shop for change.. he returns that money back.. so that cancel each other.. so only loss in bag and 800 rupees..
-200 for bag
+1000 from another shop
-800 return to lady
-1000 return to another shop
*So Ans is 1000 rupees loss*
dumbass it’s 1200, he already lost 200 on the profit of the bag, then another 1000 on the fake note
Actual loss is 800 i was solved this problem in class ans is 800 rs loss to the shop keeper
@@bakchodgamer2882 If that's true you need a new teacher. He received 1000 from the other shop and gave 1000 back, so overall he lost both the 800 he gave the shopper and the bag, netting a total loss of 1000.
कुल नुकसान = ?
बैग की कीमत = -200
औरत को दिए = -800
पडोसी दुकानदार को दिए = -1000
नकली नोट की कीमत = 0000
कुल नुकसान = 2000
The loss is 2000 for the shopkeeper
1000rps...bag worth 200+800 which he has to give to the next shop keeper
The answer is, loss of 800.. actually the the shopkeper kept 200 rupees and when the other shopkepeer came he gavy fair note of 1000 so....logically.
1000-200= 800👍👍
800 of own and 200 on bag
Bag money he received
He lost 1000.
200 rupee bag and 800 rupee change in exchange for worthless 1000 rupee note = 1000 lost.
Some people are confused, saying he had to give the 1000 back to the neighbor, so therefore he lost both the 1000 he gave back to the neighbor and the 1000 in bag plus change he gave to the customer, but this doesn't factor in that the neighbor actually gave him 1000 in exchange for that counterfeit note to begin with. So the money he got from the neighbor and the money he then returned to the neighbor cancel out. There would be no profits or losses for anyone if the note was genuine. It's just a 1000 rupee loss because the shopkeeper ends up with a worthless 1000 rupee note.
Correct
I was thinking the same thing.
(3 months late, I know)
Also, this one got a heart, so I’m assuming that 1000 is correct.
So,for example, instead of a 1.000 rupee Bill it was a 5.000, 10.000 or 100.000 rupee Bill (just for the sake of argument) no matter what Bill he gets, that would be is lose?
Wurschtbieb 1800rs loss
At the time of the problem, the shop keeper had received a good 1000 r from the people next door and had off loaded his loss onto the next shop. Of course, this may be corrected as the shop keeper may need to make good on the 1000r note and may find the lady and require her to pay him back. but that is for the future. Big fan of yours, Ammar.
As to the dice, the pattern could have been 334335.
Thanks Roger :) I love the last riddle as I have seen how easily it makes people baffled. You're right, it's just about that counterfeit currency note which is transferred from the next shopkeeper to the main guy (who will eventually be at a loss of Rs. 1000).
I will be posting a video very soon with the solution of this riddle. I know there are quite a few riddles based on similar confusing statements.
Solution for 4th question is easier in another method.
Each tyre can travel 20,000 km. 5 tyres can travel 1,00,000 km. But car runs on 4 tyres at any given time. So, the answer is 1,00,000/4 = 25,000 km
Rs 1000 is the correct answer. Consider the note was real then his profit is Rs 0. As the 1000 rupees note is fake, so he needs to compensate the this from his pocket.. So the compensation is Rs 1000 which interprets that the total loss is Rs 1000...
What about his bag.. so +200
@@muralidharanm2005 He got payed with real money for the bag, he has to give back that money (200) plus 800 from his own money. So he loses the bag and 800 = 1000
If that 1000 rs is not a fake, nothing any losses, if it is fake that 1000 only loss
Look at the last problem this way: forget the lady. You ask your friend to give you five $20 bills in exchange for a $100 bill. Your friend obliges, then finds out the $100 bill is counterfeit. You give him the five $20 bills back. Your loss is $100. You had what you thought was $100, and it turned out to be worthless. By the same logic: your loss is 1000 rupees, the friend's loss is zero, and the lady's gain is 1000 rupees in money and merchandise, assuming the bill originated with her. If not, then she presumably earned the money in some way, and her loss is zero as well. The counterfeiter gained 1000 rupees, whoever he may be.
Here we apply law of conservation of money
The another shopkeeper remain neutral as he had taken his money back. Lady get profit of 1000rs (200rs bag, 800rs returns). So loss of shopkeeper will be 1000rs equal to gain of lady
No because the lady walked away with 200+800 then he had to give next door back his 1000 so he lost 2000
@@johnmcnair8854 John, the amount he lost is that 1000 he had to give back and only that. If that is hard to understand then assume the guy next door never noticed it was fake. In that case the guy who sold the bag does his normal transaction and at this time he breaks even since he sold the $200 bag at cost and has real $200 from the shop next door. The lady is +$1000 from the $200 bag plus $800 in real money she got in change. The shop next door is -$1000 because they gave the seller $1000 in real money for a fake. So seller is at $0 and Next door at -$1000 (And lady at +$1000). When the seller gives the shop $1000 for the counterfeit it's $1000 loss total, not $2000.
An analogy of the principle of conservation can be used to solve the last question. The buyer came with a fake note, so it can be considered as 0 rupees, and she left with a bag as well as 800 rupees. So she gained 1000 rupees worth in total. The second shopkeeper gave 1000 rupees and received 1000 rupees at the end. So he can be considered as the neutral observer. So the gain of the buyer must be equal to the loss of tge shopkeeper.
Loss= 1000
The lady got 1000 benifit (200 RS bag and change of 800) it means shopkeeper gave 1000 rs to lady and he have to give 1000 Rs to the next shop against the fake 1000Rs not, so Shopkeeper actual loss is 2000 Rs
You're double-counting the money. The original 200 and 800 bills didn't come from the shopkeeper, so he doesn't lose them twice.
Shopkeeper bought the bag for -200, exchanged 1000 for +200 and 800 change so net 0 profit. Reimburses other shopkeeper for -1000 loss, and so -200 cost of bag plus -800 the change given, is all the shopkeeper lost
The shopkeeper will have a total loss of 1200
200+800 to pay the another shopkeeper
And the bag worth 200
@@debasismuduli5010 He only lost 1000, he did not pay the other shopkeeper with his money
Question 1-
Entirely inconclusive.
You can't just say your solution is right if there is multiple logical solutions.
That's not the way this works.
Question 2 -
You're wrong. it's 2 cuts.
Cut two pieces in half in one cut and make them completely new smaller links.
Didn't say specify the links had to be equal length, nor did you specify the length of a cut - but you did allow for the parameters of bending and welding with no limit specifications.
I. E.
Ø (x2) = o o o o
Question 3 -
The answer is actually no logical answer exists.
There is only one "6 shot revolver".. Even if all "6 shots" were fired, it would still only be one shot.
No specification was made to the bullets within the revolver. I. E. Your answer is not properly formatted, but instead based on an assumption.
Question 4 could've been explained much easier.
Add all the tires maximum capacity, divide by the number of tires used at once.
There is many ways to arrange the tires to reach maximum capacity - You failed to understand your own question.
Question 5 -
Has no logical response.
We cannot determine the wholesale price of the bag or what he would've ultimately sold it for in any possible circumstance.
Example: "Going out of business sale"
We also do not know if he could've offloaded the bill to someone for a certain price.
Basically the best answer with no assumptions is - The boy got 1,000 rps. Out of him, the woman got 800 and a indeterminately priced bag out of him while he received a fake 1,000 rps and possibly sold it for unknown amounts.
Too try hard :D
@@saynn9134 I.E. Correct. Lol
Then would Q2 be 1 cut? Cut one link straight down the middle length-ways to result in 6 halves, which can be used to link the other three together.
Q no 4 is excellent
Option c. 1000 is the right answer
Cuz she gave him 1000 rupees note for the product worth 200 rupees and he returns 800 rupees to her ,so the product amount and the amount which he returned is 200+800=1000...
Now as for my perspective first of all the shopkeeper had made no profit from the bag he sold to the lady instead he took the fake note of 1000 rupees and got exchanged
From the nearby shop where the shop man gave the shopkeeper 1000 rupees exchanged from his own money in small amounts
Later the former sold the bag to the lady for 200 and gave her away 800 rupees thus he got no profit at all till this point and also no loss also but when the shop man came and asked for his 1000 rupee on account of the fake note thereby the bag shopkeeper having made no profit at all sadly had to pay 1000 rupees from his own pocket to the shop man
Thus he incurred a total loss of 1000 rupees for himself
Please like and comment about my explanational theory ☺☺
Brilliant ...👍
lady came with fake 1000 and got profit of worth1000 (Rs 800 and some shopping bag worth 200) shopkeeper brought change to1000Rs from another shopkeeper and later had to pay him from his pocket his 1000Rs that means he actually got a loss of -1800 (because he keeps real 200Rs of change and give the lady 800 i.e -800 and had to pay another shopkeeper 1000 i.e -1800 total.
correct me if I'm wrong please.
@@a7f229 You are wrong. The fake 1000 can never account for more than a 1000 loss. The loss moved to the second shop when the first merchant exchanged it for a real 1000. When the second shop came to collect, it moved the loss back onto the first shop.
@@a7f229 yes. U r right. According to me shop keeper incurred loss of Rs. 1800.
This can be explained in another way.
(1) lady took away from shop keeper : ( forget fake note for a moment) : Rs. 800 cash real notes and a bag worth Rs. 200 ( remember that Rs. 200 notes are still with shopkeeper.
(2) now shop keeper has to repay Rs. 1000 in lieu of fake note. He pays that Rs. 200 which he got as selling price of bag + 800 from his pocket to nearby shopkeeper.
Now what original shop keeper loses ?
Rs. 200 bag price
Rs. 800 paid to lady real
.notes
Rs. 800 paid to another
Shopkeeper
in lieu of fake
note. Here, Rs.
800 , bcoz he
already had Rs.
200 in his cash :
Cost of bag sold.
___________
Rs. 1800 Total loss.
@@deshbhaktdeshwasi2975 Total loss is 1000 not 1800
For those saying 2000 or 1800. If your solution is correct, you are saying he would have lost money even if the note was real. Does this make sense?
For question 1, A was a possible answer, but not "the correct answer" as D would be a more logical answer.
I wouldn't call it one is more logical than another, but rather, one "seems more obvious" to us than others. That being said, we haven't strictly proven that A, B or C are invalid predictions. While I chose D since I justify it by observing that 3 + 3 + 5 = 11, 3 + 5 + 4 = 12, 5 + 4 + 4 =13, so we'd have 4 + 4 + 6 = 14 to complete the pattern. That's one possible pattern, but there can be other patterns that can lead to D too. As long as if an answer is justified, and it can be generalized beyond what is observed, it is acceptable imo. There doesn't seem to be a unique answer to this question anyways; else, prove that there is.
To top it off, to say that the answer is unique because you aren't able to figure out other patterns is not a valid reasoning by the following premise: "If you are not able to figure out something, it is not a factor that determines whether something exists or not.".
@@somewhatblankpaper1423 yeah except he’s right. It’s not just the more logical or more sensible. It actually has a pattern. And the pattern actually makes WAY more sense than any of the other options. Now, you’re probably one of those people that went to collage thinking you’re actually smart now (which is falsified information for your edification) but you’re just plain wrong here. You see, I don’t care if you were homeschooled, or went to Yale… you’re wrong and everybody knows it.😂😂
@@judahlowe1636 ??? You haven't really disproven any of my statement logically and you just asserted that you are right. Sure buddy. I guess it's better to assume ignorance when one doesn't know what to say.
"makes more sense" is literally a subjective statement in itself. Suppose a person who has never perceived a lighter. Hence, that person doesn't really know it works, what it is prior to seeing it. If one gives that person a lighter, that person would literally be clueless of what that object is and what it can be used for until he/she decides to investigate the object. On top of that, a lighter can be used for various purposes and not just to light fire, just as those "patterns" can go one way or another way. I don't know why does it necessarily have to imply that sequence. Maybe if one doesn't try to explore other possible patterns, one thinks that this is the only one that makes sense. But anyways, since u haven't provided any scientific evidence as to why the pattern "makes more sense", your opinion is discarded until you find any.
Q1 has several solutions, for example, it can be 3, 3, 5, 4, 4, 6 (+0+2-1+0+2-1 a.s.o.).
In Q2 you need at least 1 cut. You just put all end pieces of every chain into the one cut open and have a mini circle.
Exactly. Even I got different answer which is logically correct.
Actually the lady gains 1000 rupees , and she gains it from the shopkeeper.So actually he losses 1000 rupees.actually it is followed by the conservation of total amount of rupee.
I think shopkeeper lost 2000rs. Since the money returned to lady is real(assumption) 800+200 lost a lady also 1000rs to return to shopkeeper
@@vcvartak7111 You are counting the same money twice.
After a long time ammar thankyou for such videos 😀
Thanks Harshit... more puzzles on the way : )
1000 is the correct.😊
The first one is kinda gimmicky without more initial clarification on the nature of the pattern.
Right, by the pattern, 6 would be correct as well.
The first two being 3's, then a 5, it could be argued the third die is two more.
Example:
1,1,3
2,2,4
3,3,5
4,4, "6"
See?
Although, to be constructive, if he had spelled the number, rather than the digits, there would have been a third pattern someone would have to notice.
The first one answer is 3.
Reason:
The result is the count of letters in the successive digits which is displayed in the form of numbers in a dice.
So, 1 is one = 3 dots in dice
2 is two = 3 dots in dice
3 is three = 5 dots in dice
4 is four = 4 dots in dice
5 is five = 5 dots in dice
So, the next digit 6 would be six = 3 dots in dice.
Hence, answer is 3 dotted dice
Answer to the last question:
Let's disregard the interaction between the two shopkeepers because the boy gave 1000$ and later took them back so no difference in capital. Since we know the note the lady gives is fake, we can assume she gives 0$. On the other hand, the shopkeeper gives her 1000$ real money, 200 in the form of the bag and 800 as "change" to the note that he received from her. The equation looks like this:
0 - 1000 = -1000
Ivo you are right
It is very simple.{Ans: 1000}
There are three people: shopkeeper 1(s1) shopkeeper 2(s2) and the woman.
If we come to the later part then, first s1 takes 1000 from s2 for the fake note and makes a profit of 1000. After that s2 takes his money back . Therefore total profit/loss of s1 till this is 0.
Now since only two people remains , therefore the profit of one will be the loss for another .
As we know that s1 faces a loss, therefore his loss = woman's profit.
WOMAN'S PROFIT=200(bag)+800(the money that s1 returned)=1000
Great video
In 1st puzzle according to the pattern the answer can also be 6(d)
It could also be 5 if the (extended) pattern were 115225335445555665
@@BAAT484 no
4:54 "The boy from the shop comes , saying its a fake note"
Report the boy to the police, he obviously pocketed the real one, and substituted one of his own fakes!
It the note was fake, then he would have seen it during the exchange. As would the bag shopkeeper, they always keep a very good eye out for fake notes.
☺️
So the shopkeeper lost only ₹1000
Yess
1200 he also loss the bag worth Rs200.
@@oz2166 Bt He Got 200 For The Bag Already Loss Of 1800 Is Correct
2000 is the correct answer
Wrong
-200 bag
+1000 from boy
-800 change
-1000 back to boy
-200+1000-800-1000=-1000
1000 is the loss
@@aenzardion The +1000 that u wrote is the fake note
He got 1000 from the shop owner, who demanded it back, so he paid him back 1000. He gave the Lady a 200 bag, and 800 change. He is out, $1000.
@@sirn. wrong Syed, it's 1000
@@sirn. don't call people names Syed, respect for all. Of course it is his bag, it's stated in the beginning of the video.
@@sirn.
The answer is 1000
Because,
When shop keeper recieved a fake currency, then he has -1000 (since it's fake means it's loss for him) with him
When he exchanged with next shop keeper now he has 1000(real bill) (and next Shop keeper now has lost -1000 ) , he will return 800 to customer then he has 200 with him, then next shop keeper came back and ask 1000 back so now he has 200-1000= -800 and -200 for selling a bag by taking fake bill and he got no profit at all
So total loss is 1000
No, the answer will be 1200
Ans is 1000 INR.
Reason:
After the shopkeeper exchanged the fake 1000 money, he had 1000 real note, then he returned 800 to the lady. So, his earning was 1000-800=200 real note. After the boy next shop demanded 1000 real note for the fake one, the shopkeeper had to take the fake 1000 note back and give back 200 real note (his earning from selling the bag) + 800 real note from his own pocket. So, his total loss = 200(earning from the bag) + 800 = 1000
The answer to the last one is R1000. He lost no money in the change swap with the neighbor’s shop.
He lost R200 goods and R800 cash to the lady.
This is perfectly played out if you imagine the shop keeper started with R1000 cash in the drawer and R1000 goods. By the end the shopkeeper has $800 goods and R200 cash. Leaving him less by R1000 which is his total loss. (Which should be obvious since that’s the value of the counterfeit bill which the shopkeeper suffered the loss of )
Its 1000, he starts with 200 and ends with a debt of 800, the difference is 1000
It's not a math question, it's a logical question.
Transaction would have been fair only unfair was the 1000 rupee note. And shopkeeper had to keep that note in the end. Therefore total loss of shop keeper will be 1000.
What about the money the boy from next shop takes ?? He takes his 1000 RS back.
Imagine shopkeeper starts with 1000 RS and 200 worth bag. He takes fake note and come back with real 1000 RS change gives 800 to lady and 200 worth of bag.So he loses 1000 here but he also gets to keep 200Rs change so his loss is of 800rs uptil now. But when the boy from next shop takes his 1000 RS back. So the total loss is 1800.Correct answer is E.1800
@@hina_rauf
The correct answer is 1000.
2000 bag worth 200 change 800 and then he also paid barrowed money worth 1000 to nearby shop
1000
1000
Shopkeeper had no loss or profit from the lady
But gave 1000 from his own pocket😊
1800 loss dude
Yes correct
Sarthak Aggrawal correct. 1000 rs loss, as even after selling the bag he got 200 rs in return with no profit made on that exchange meaning simple exchange of goods (i.e. selling of bag doesn’t count for any profit or loss). But he had to give 1000 rs from his own pocket. Lady got a profit of 800 rs, shopkeeper got a loss of 1000 rs n the remaining 200 balance is what is the cash the shopkeeper got for the bag
@@a7f229 1000 is the correct
You could trace the assets or you could just use a conservation approach.
The lady gave away a fake note (zero value) and got 800 + a bag (value 200). She gained 1000.
The other shop gave away 1000 and got back 1000. Zero net.
Therefore somebody lost 1000 and it has to be the first shop.
You assume the first shop owes a debt, but the riddle doesn't say that. Next door shop comes back for 1000 but first shop only has 200. Our guy loses 200 (the value of the bag) and next door loses 800 (value of the bank notes they gave, minus the value of bank notes they reclaimed).
@@noodle_fc @4:58 Point #4 says "The boy from the shop next door comes with the 1000 rupee note saying it's a fake, and he takes his money back."
That is as clear as day. Initially shop 1 gave shop 2 the 1000 note and received 1000 in smaller change. The next day, shop 2 brought back the 1000 note, and "takes back his money." Since he gave him 1000 on the first day, naturally he would have taken 1000 back.
Your scenario would only be true if shop 1 had zero money in his cash register when the lady purchased the bag, and shop 2 came back immediately with the 1000 note. Then all shop 1 would have is 200 rupees. But shop 2 actually returned the next day. It is natural to assume that shop 1 collected more cash during the day. You are one assuming that he didn't.
@@denvercheddie The solution to literally thousands of riddles depends on resisting a "natural" assumption and taking the situation exactly as stated. What's clear as day, _according to what is literally stated in the riddle,_ is that the shopkeeper has 200 rupees of the neighbor's money and the customer has the other 800. We all agree about that. But then write "takes his money back" and suddenly the location of 800 rupees of that money doesn't matter? Okay.
Well.... I looked at is as, the first shopkeeper may have many Rs 1000 notes in his till, but nothing smaller. So he went next door to get change for the lady's note. When the second shopkeeper discovered the fake, he came over and 'took his money back' by simply taking one of the first shopkeeper's Rs 1000 notes.
Assuming this is the way it happened, then the first shopkeeper lost Rs 1000 total, in the form of a bag (Rs 200) and Rs 800 in smaller notes. He has one fewer Rs 1000 notes in his till, but now also has Rs 200 smaller notes. But doesn't have the bag anymore. He's lost Rs 1000 in value, the Rs 1000 note he let the neighbor have to replace the fake note.
@@mikefochtman7164 Thank you for that clear explanation. I really don't think it can be explained any more clearly than you did. And if people still can't get it from that, then they can't get it.
Last one answer is Rs. 1000
Just imagine if shopkeeper has changes... He just give to the lady a 200rs worth of bag and 800rs change... Lady gains 1000.. now shopkeeper goes to another shop for getting changes... Now he realized that this note was fake..
So 1000rs loss for shopkeeper
Nope he already gave 1000 to another shop kipper now another want his money back so he gets loss of 2000
@@jashanmahal2321 hah I was just about to post that and then I saw your post. I'd like to do business with a lot of the commenters on here, they'd never know why they were hella short at the end of the day every day.
@@johnmcnair8854 He only loses 1000, He gets 1000 from the other shopkeeper, *which was not his money to begin with*. He gives away the other shopkeeper's money, not his, then he has to give it back.
1000 is the right answer.
And I would recommend u to make the answer of the puzzle in the next video
He lost 1800
As the note was fake he gave the lady extra 800 from his pocket
Again the other shopkeeper took 1000 from him
The only thing he got was that 200 which is actually the price of the bag so this is not any of his profit or loss
Therefore ultimately he lost 1800
Ans is 2000, he also gave the bag worth rs 200 to the lady, that is also his loss..
@@hemant__liftsyou're dead right. there's a lot of really bad shopkeepers commenting on here. I wouldnt want to be their bank manager
@@johnmcnair8854 Yes, there are a lot of bad shopkeepers commenting that the answer is anywhere between 1200-2000. The answer is 1000
Simple... Loss to the shopkeeper = Profit to that Lady
She took 200 worth goods & also she received 800 rs change... So the Loss to shopkeeper is Rs. 1,000
Plus another person take 1000 Rs that also lose
No he also earned 200₹ from the lady
Eashan Jindal that's why shopkeeper lost 1800rs only
Eashan Jindal no, he can’t earn 200 if the note was fake. The lady gave him zero, he gave the shop keeper zero, the shop keeper gave him 1000. He gave 800 to Lady 200 to self. But hasn’t cost him anything at this stage as he got the 1000 for free. He gave the neighbor a 1000. So he’s 1000 down, plus cost of bag... 1200
@@bigSwigsofGuinness He did earn 200 from the bag because that was real money from the other shopkeeper. He gave a bag worth 200 to the lady plus 800 from the other shopkeeper. He now has to give back the 200 he earned (effectively losing the bag) plus 800 from his own pocket. Total loss of 1000
I got all of them right except the first one and the shopkeeper one in comments section.
A sale isn't a loss, no matter how the change is divvied out. If the 1000 note were real, there would have been no loss at all. So the answer is 1000, no more.
"But the bag--" came out of the 1000.
"But the 800 change--" also came out of the 1000.
"But when the neighboring shop--" that was the 1000 he lost!
If it's not intuitive to you, focus not on what the shopkeeper did and didn't give away; focus instead on what the counterfeiter got out of it: a bag worth 200, and 800 in legitimate change. What's 200 + 800? Why, 1000!
What did the neighboring shop gain or lose? Ultimately, nothing. They traded 1000 for 1000, realized the new 1000 was fake, and took 1000 back. They wound up with exactly what they started with.
So the counterfeiter gained 1000. The neighboring shop broke even. If the shopkeeper lost more than 1000, where did the rest of it go? The answer is nowhere: he lost 1000 even.
The thief stole 200 in goods and 800 in real money received in change. The loss of any party in this situation has to be equal to the theft. The answer is 1000.
How about the merchandise. It's gone, too.
But he gave shopkeeper 1000 soo it's 2000 total
@@yuvarajgowda7940 No it’s not. The thief stole 200 in merchandise and 800 of the real money received from the boy next door. The boy comes back and collects the 200 of the real dollars left over and the shopkeeper needs to give 800 of his own money to the boy. The shop keep at the end of the day is -200 for merchandise and -800 for the portion of his money that he had to give the next door shop.
1st riddle: We have pair of 3, pair of 4 and one 5, so answer is 5 points dice to make 3rd pair.
lets imagine the cash register was empty to begin with.
He gets 1000 from the shop nearby.
He gives out 800 as change. (Lady has 200 worth of goods)
there is now 200 in the register.
Next shop comes, takes 1000.
There is -800 in the register.
instead of having 200 like in a normal transaction, he has -800. Difference=>1000 net loss.
by comparing the two states, namely how it should have been had it been a normal transaction, to what actually happened, we can ignore what goods the lady left with.
ez.
@Rantor von Hohenfels I believe he said the shopkeeper doesn’t make profit on the bag so that would mean that before the bag was purchased we could assume he was -200
last one:
shopkeeper sells an item worth 200. (-200)
shopkeeper receives fake 1000 bill (+0)
shopkeeper goes to get change for fake bill (+1000)
shopkeeper gives woman her change (-800)
neighboring shopkeeper comes back for full value of counterfeit bill (-1000)
so, totaling it all up, (-200) + (0) + (1000) + (-800) + (-1000) = (-1000)
at least, that's how i think it works...
A loss of Rs. 1000 !!
Let's condense the equation this way -
The one who's neutral, the one who's on profit and the one who's on loss
1. The other shopkeeper gave the first shopkeeper 1000, then took back his 1000. So he's neutral.
2. The lady gave a fake note (Rs. 0) and took away Rs. 1000 (200bag + 1000). She got on profit of Rs. 1000.
3. The shopkeeper got no money from the lady, and gave goods worth Rs. 1000. A loss of Rs. 1000.
To the other shopkeeper, he gave the money which he asked for earlier. Nothing tough
1st puzzle... 3,3,5 4,4,6 (wait for a pair, then next die is +2)
(1200) bcoz the lady took one bag the bag cost is 200. Shopkeeper take 1000rps change for another shop and returns that 1000rps coz of that is fake note.😊
Forget all about.money transaction......
She came with no money....
Shopkeeper given 200 bag+800 ₹ for free
Last puzzle: In a normal situation, the shopkeeper would have 1 less bag, and 200$(or R) in profit. But here, he still has 1 less bag, has lost 800$ for the money he gave back to the lady, and didn't get the 200$ profit. So overall a 1000$ loss.
Total loss would be ₹2000, shopkeeper has to return ₹1000 for his neighbour because the note which he gave was a fake note and the lady ran off with ₹200 worth bag and ₹800 change.So totally it's₹2000.
It's 1800 coz he kept 200 with him
1000 is not given to boy for free that get only this 1000back ....so only 1000with a women is loss for shopkeeper
I answered correctly to 3 rd one. That is 24 seconds.
In money he is out 1800. If you include the goods it is 2000. He gives the change and the product to the lady, that is 1000. He now has to give the 1000 back to the shopkeeper next door
Questions like #1 are just nonsense. There are several different patterns to be detected there, and one is arbitrarily chosen to be "the correct one".
no dice
I guess it is thousand, as money gained=money lost, and the neighbor faces no gain/loss, the lady gets rs. 1000 gain(800 return of shop keeper, 200rs. Purse)= money lost by shopkeeper
1000(800 change+200 bag's peice)+200(loss of bag)=1200
He had a bag of 200
He gets change from next shop
Keeps 200 and returns rest to the lady
So he has his 200
If shipkeeper is to return the fake money with real one then he is in 1000loss
Else no loss
Agreed
Nice voice and questions
thanks Nakka :)
He lost 1000, Here's how:
- He gave the lady a bag worth 200 (-200)
His net money = -200
- She gave him fake notes (+0)
His net money = -200
- He gave the shopkeeper the fake money (-0) and got 1000 (+1000)
His net money = 800
- He gave the lady 800 in cash (-800)
His net money = 0
- The shopkeeper demanded his 1000 back (-1000)
His net money = -1000
So, his net loss is 1000
Another way to think about it:
- He took 1000 from the shopkeeper and gave it back:
net gain/loss from shopkeeper = 1000 - 1000 = 0
- He gave the lady 200 as a bag, and 800 in cash.
net gain/loss from the lady = -200 - 800 = -1000
So his net gain/loss = -0 (from shopkeeper) - 1000 (from the lady) = -1000
i'm pretty sure is 1800, first -200 from the bag, then -800 from the change, then he is left with 200 but those 200 go towards the 1000 but he still needs 800 to give those 1000 back. so in retrospect -200, -800, -800 = -1800
@@dannybenalcazar2625 I already calculated the -800, along with with the bag (-200) it becomes -1000.
You calculated the -800 twice.
Yes, you gave him back 1000 and gave the lady 800 in cash so thats 1800. but don't forget that he gave you 1000 in cash. so -1000 + 1000 cancel out.
and you are left with -800 and -200 from the bag
He gave the lady Rs200 bag and Rs800 return for a fake note i.e for free.It means he lost Rs1000 there.
Now he has 200 but he has to give 1000 back to beside shopkeeper i.e he added his own 800 with 200 he has.
Totally 1800.
I think so....if it was wrong plz correct me guys
@@rockerscrew6212 You didn't take into account that he gained 1000 from the shopkeeper, when he gave him fake notes (he lost 0).
in your comment, you said "i.e he added his own 800..." so you answered yourself here. he only added his "own" 800 (he lost only 800 in cash). and you said "with 200 he has". well how did he magically get that 200?
Because he gained 1000 from the shopkeeper, and lost 800 to the lady, thats why he has 200. the 800 was deducted from the shopkeeper money, not from his own.
he only lost 800 from his own cash + lost 200 as a bag.
therefore, he lost 1000 in total
Aaaaaaaaa....s..I got it...tq bro...
1000 is the correct answer. Loss to shopkeeper = profit to women
Its 1200 bcs he also buy ya bag thats worth rs 200
GAIN is equal to the Loss so, the lady gain 1000 amount so the shop keeper loss 1000 rupees.
1. First , shoperkeeper goes to his next shopkeeper.(still think no lose).
2. He sell bag . ( Still think no profit / lose ).
3. Next shopkeeper came and get his original 1000 rupees (now lose 1000).
4. Coz he gives lady 1800 ruppee ( lose 1000+800= 1800).
5. He also gives to lady bag worth 200. ( Lose 1800 + 200 = 2000)
So
" lose = 2000"
Wrong explanation
Ri8
loss is 1000rs as he gave the the lady 800rs+200rs bag
since 800rs was of the boy from another shop and he has to return that 800rs to the boy and he has the 200rs,so the loss for him is only 800rs
but he also lost a bag of 200rs therefore total loss is 800+200
which is 1000rs
The loss is 1000 - easy way to think about it -> Total loss = total gain. Lady gained 200 worth bag + 800 cash i.e 1000 so that has to be the loss of shopkeeper. The lender does not lose anything as he gets his 1000 loaned back
Does the lender get the full amount back? The riddle only says "takes his money back," but remember, by the time he returns the customer has left with 800 rupees. The first shopkeeper has only 200 to return. Thus their losses are: shopkeeper, 200 (the value of the bag taken); lender, 800 (1000 lent minus 200 recovered).
I believe the trick of the riddle is to realize that the first shopkeeper only ever had 200 to begin with, i.e., the value of the bag. He cannot lose more than he has.
@@noodle_fc Ans is 1000, Shopkeeper has to return the 1000 to the lender LOL its not some fantasy world dude. According to ur logic, the shopkeeper can hypothetically end with 0 loss assuming he spent those 200 before lender came to collect so he wont return any. Ik u r just trolling, but the loss is simple 1000 :)
@@darkludge 1. There is no lender. It wasn't a loan; it was an exchange. I adopted the original commenter's term to make my response easier to parse, but since now it's central to your claim, I object. Kind of embarrassing to have to correct you on that, to be honest. A grown person should know the difference between "I give you something, you give me something" and "I give you something and you'll give it back later."
For the sake of argument, let's just imagine it was a loan. Loan someone $10, let them spend $8, then try to take your money back. Did you get $10? You did not. _Even if_ that person owes you the $8 they spent, _you have not taken it back._ If you get home and someone asks you, "Did you take back your $10?" there is no way you would say yes. Then they ask, "how much did you get?" and you would answer $2. You know that's true, that's exactly how the conversation would occur, even if you won't admit it here. Words mean things. Again, embarrassed to be explaining this to an adult.
2. I'm not the one assuming things. If you stick with only the things mentioned in the riddle, I'm right. I had one guy argue the answer is 1000 because the shopkeeper would have to pay back a bank, for fuck's sake. What goddamn bank?!
There are exactly three items that change hands in the problem. A bag, a fake note, and real notes of the same value. The _only_ way to come up with 1000 is by introducing something that wasn't part of the story. That's on you, which makes it particularly stupid that you accuse me of it. In the beginning the shopkeeper has the bag; at the end he has nothing. His losses consist of: the bag (a 200 rupee value), full stop.
3. Before I read the comments, I treated it as a riddle. I now realize this is nothing but a word problem masquerading as a "riddle," because many people are so fucking terrible at keeping a few figures straight and doing some simple arithmetic.
I don't recall any other video on this channel that can be solved by a few addition and subtraction operations. Why would I expect this video to be different? I'm honestly surprised and disappointed that coming up with 1000 seems to some people sufficiently mysterious to make it a satisfying answer. It really shouldn't be. How many times has the most obvious, naïve answer been wrong on this channel's videos? Very often.
4. If solving a word problem makes people feel smart, well, I don't especially want to take that away from them. I didn't share my answer to belittle anyone; rather, I hoped it would give them the "aha!" feeling that riddles often generate when one sees the solution. If people want to stick with their boring answers lacking an "aha!" I don't begrudge them.
But I do object to those people, including you, acting as if _I'm_ the crazy one for doing nothing more than treating the problem as if it meant exactly what it said. (Again, because that is what's usually required on this channel and to solve riddles in general.) Feel smart about doing math if you want to. Just don't tell me, because I'm not impressed.
5. Obviously I don't expect this to change your mind. I just felt like telling you off, kinda for funsies. Honestly, I really shouldn't bother engaging with you people, but venting about a pet peeve every once in a while is an innocuous foible in the grand scheme of things.
@@noodle_fc If u were crt 1 argument wd have been enough.🙂 u r casing ur problem solving based on "your assumption that lender guy also got cheated". Lemme clear this for u, maybe there's 1 or thing u cd learn from a kid, the SHOPKEEPER got the money from the lender, someone who clearly knows his location & place of business. On the other hand, the customer just got away. Btw idk y I'm even trying to convince stuffs to delusional ppl like urself. It clearly states in the question, "the lender got his money back"!!!!!!!!!"🙄. What do u expect to happen when a person confronts?? (I'm sure the shopkeeper wd expect to return get his money back, when he confronts the customer. But that didn't happen). So try to understand this, when the lender comes back with the 1000 fake note to exchange back saying it was fake, u have to pay back. This isn't a LOAN. U don't expect to pay a part of that sum & then pay up later.
Seriously, just try to think when the lender comes back returning 1000 fake currency he expects a full return. Not something that u cd give at that moment 🤦, lemme just make clear if u have found any mathematical error/ logical flaw do come up with ur explanation. A kind request wd be to stop ur silly assumptions in the future (when the qn is so damn clear).
I didn't understand what u were trying@ the beginning, perhaps I assumed u were trolling & I concur that's the nly wrong assumption I've made.
Just solve the puzzle based on the question, don't do just bcoz it makes u feel smart/something.
In case, u still didn't understand good luck 👍, after all this problem isn't everything u might be good @ some other domain 🙃 Peace.
@@darkludge No, it says he "takes" his money back. I'm going to just refer you to my hypothetical where you give someone $10 and they have $2 on them when you come to _take_ your $10. You *know* the way I described it is what you would say. You _know_ you would not tell someone you took your $10 back if you only actually had $2 in your hand. Any objection on that point is a straight-up lie. Byeeeeee
The shopkeeper loses Rs. 1000 to the lady (Rs. 800 in cash + Rs. 200 for the bag).. The mention of another shopkeeper is just to confuse...
Yes.. He losses Rs. 1000/- in total..
I agree with the explanation..
I would say 1000.
800 rupees loss of having to pay the other shopkeeper.
And 200 rupees loss on the bag!
What do u think if i say 1200 he loses
I mean 1000 from th shop man and 200 bag...
K
Right. See frm the ladys perspective. She simply exchanged her fake 1000 rs for bag and 800 rs cash which is her profit. Her profit is equal to sales mans loss. Answer is 1000 rs
His loss is 2000. He gave the lady bag worth 200. He gave the lady back 800. The boy took 1000.
Total loss for shopkeeper is 2000.
How?
Lady carried a 1000 fake note and purchased 200 bag + in return taken 800 amount, total she benefited of 1000.
The other shopkeeper came and said its a fake note and return back same to shopkeeper and taken the original note. There is no loss for the other shopkeeper.
The shopkeeper sell 200 bag + 800 returned the remaining amount and given 1000 rupees to another shopkeeper.
If my guess is correct the overall loss to the shopkeeper was 2000.
Wrong. He loss only 1000 thousand.
Because another shopkeeper just give him 1000 as change and take his money 1000. So involvement of that shopkeeper is zero. Another shopkeeper is no profit no loss condition. So shopkeeper total loss is 1000.
2 answers 1 the shop keeper lost 1000 total the bag and 800 in money and the borrowing the change makes no difference he lost total 1000 in goods and money for the fake note. 2 The wording says the lender of the 1000 in change took his money back which could mean he only took back the 200 that was his (it also doesn't say the shop keeper had any more money at this point) in which case the shop keeper is only down the bag or 200.
Simple
Forget the fake bill and reframe the case as this.
A 'lady' came in and took off with a bag worth Rs 200 and Rs 800 from the shelf.
The spellbound keeper (shop) failed to react. Then what is his loss ?
In the case of tyres, though each tyre runs 20000km, as four tyres are working together the effective efficiency of four tyres together is 20000km That means effective efficiency of a tyre is 5000km only. So five tyres gives an efficiency of 5 times 5000 means 25000
Your reasoning for Fake note is perfect.
However, for the car tyre problem, the approach of replacing tyres would be needed as a proof..... (of course, if the same is asked in an aptitude test, where you just need to tick an option, then your explanation is perfect.)
@@LOGICALLYYOURS than q
1200. The boy took the money back (1000) and he lost stock to the value of whatever he sold (200).
800 also that he gave to the lady as change
@Taiyabali Ujjainwala The note was fake that the lady gave, so he gave real 1000 to the guy who came to take his money back.
@@amogh708 Yea after the guy gave him real 1000 in change before, he just takes it back.
The balance with the other shopkeeper is +/- 0 in the end, and he gave the lady the articles and 800 in change for "free", so it's 1000 loss total.
1000. Kyunki yeh note hi nakli hai and lady ne free mein bags kharida.
So the answer is 1000
2000rs loss,
Because 1000rs is given to the boy from next shop.
800rs is given to the lady as balance.
And a bag cost of 200rs (as in question says the shopkeeper sells with zero profit)
Totally 2000rs loss.
One thousand
Friendly advice.. Please try to put a better music on the background.
All in all the video is good.
It will be 2000 since shopkeeper gave the bag worth of rs 200 and then he returned 800 after that again he gave 1000 to another shopkeeper..
So in total he loses 2000
The answer is 1000
Because,
When shop keeper recieved a fake currency, then he has -1000 (since it's fake means it's loss for him) with him
When he exchanged with next shop keeper now he has 1000(real bill) (and next Shop keeper now has lost -1000 ) , he will return 800 to customer then he has 200 with him, then next shop keeper came back and ask 1000 back so now he has 200-1000= -800 and -200 for selling a bag by taking fake bill and he got no profit at all
So total loss is 1000
Q5: $1000 . He had to pay $1k out of pocket and kept a $200 note, for $800. On top of that he has to replace the bag for $200, for $1000 total. Apologies for using $.
Exception case: if the bag was unsellable anyway and he doesn't wish to replace it, then he only lost $800 and the personal use of that bag (which presumably he wouldn't want to use either).
Total Loss=200(Bag Cost)+800(Return to lady)+1000(neighbor)=Rs.2000
But he got 1000 from the boy before. Its a closed loop. The lady got 1000 (200 + 800) the boy didnt get anything (1000-1000) so the keeper lost 1000 ((200+800)+(1000-1000))