Jeff and Dale each own a bar. Jeff's is in Northern New York, and Dale's is just across the border in Canada.
As it turns out, at the beginning of this problem, a Canadian Dollar is worth exactly the same as the U.S. Dollar, and people are quite accustomed to using them interchangeably (including banks).
But, alas, the U.S. Government and the Canadian government get in a spat. So, the U.S. "devalues" the Canadian dollar 10%, so now they will treat it as worth 90 cents (U.S. currency). In retaliation, Canada does the same and "devalues" the U.S. dollar 10%, so they treat it as worth 90 cents (Canadian currency).
Enter Sam.
Sam goes to Jeff's bar and purchases a 1 dollar drink and pays with a 10 dollar bill (U.S.). He receives, in change, a 10 dollar bill (Canadian). He then walks across the border to Dale's bar and purchases another 1 dollar drink, paying with a 10 dollar bill (Canadian), and he receives, in change, a 10 dollar bill (U.S.).
Sam proceeds to continue doing this until he finds himself quite intoxicated.
I think it obvious that Sam is gaining on these transactions. The question is.... WHO (if anyone) is losing out on these transactions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie has undertaken a dangerous desert trek rather than marry either of his current girlfriends. So each girlfriend (unaware of the others actions)
sabotaged his reserve water supply. Lisa added a quick-acting poison while Jane punctured the barrel, allowing all of the poisoned water to run away.
One week later Charlie died from dehydration.
However:
When arrested Lisa claimed she was innocent because even though she poisoned the water Charlie did not drink any.
Jane claimed she was not guilty because puncturing the barrel had stopped Charlie from dying sooner from the poison. Her action made him live longer. They
cannot be charged jointly since they acted independently.
Who, if anyone, should be charged with what crime?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four girls were blindfolded and each was given an identical box, containing different colored balls:
One box contained 3 black balls.
One box contained 2 black balls and 1 white ball.
One box contained 1 black ball and 2 white balls.
One box contained 3 white balls.
Each box had a label on it reading "BBB" (Three Black) or "BBW" (Two Black, One White) or "BWW" (One Black, Two White) or "WWW" (Three White). The girls were told that none of the four labels correctly described the contents of the box to which it was attached.
Each girl was told to draw two balls from her box, at which point the blindfold would be removed so that she could see the two balls in her hand and the label on the box assigned to her. She was given the task of trying to guess the color of the ball remaining in her box.
As each girl drew balls from her box, her colors were announced for all the girls to hear, but the girls could not see the labels on any boxes other than their own.
The first girl, having drawn two black balls, looked at her label and announced: "I know the color of the third ball!"
The second girl drew one white and one black ball, looked at her label and similarly stated: "I too know the color of the third ball!"
The third girl drew two white balls, looked at her label, and said: "I can't tell the color of the third ball."
Finally, the fourth girl declared: "I don't need to remove my blindfold or any balls from my box, and yet I know the color of all three of them. What's more, I know the color of the third ball in each of the other boxes, as well as the labels of each of the boxes that you have."
The first three girls were amazed by the fourth girl's assertion and promptly challenged her. She proceeded to identify everything that she said she could.
How did she do it?
