OK, Adam wants more puzzles. :D

OK, first one is not really the yes/no question type. It is a lateral thinking puzzle, but more of a riddle and you just need to try to think of the scenario. There may be more than one logical explanation, but you have to guess the right one.

A woman has incontrovertible proof in court that her husband was murdered by her sister. The judge declares, "This is the strangest case I've ever seen. Though it's a cut-and-dried case, this woman cannot be punished."

Oops, I didn't mean to name this the same as the other thread and confuse people. I just noticed that. And now I can't change it. Sorry 'bout that.

I'll change it if you give me the title you want.

Doh, I don't know. Not too useful, am I? I guess it's not important - all these threads are starting to look alike anyway. LOL.

Would "some more" instead of "new" be less confusing?

Or how about add Part 2.

So is this just figuring out why it was a shut and close case and why the woman can't be punished even though all the proof is there?

Right. You can ask questions if you like, but I suspect the answers to most would be no. You mostly have to figure out why the woman can't be punished. There's one really obviously simple reason, but that isn't it cause it IS about thinking outside the box. (And I got it totally wrong myself.)

LOL J - that'll certainly get their attention.

Hmm... I suck at these. Unless I can ask questions, I suck.

You can ask questions if you like. I'm just not sure that's the best way to go. Really, on any of these, if you can think up what the situation is, you don't have to ask questions. It's just that usually you really have to because it's so obscure - I mean, like there's just no information to go on. This one you have all the information you need - it's just a matter of thinking of it.

However, I can dig up something else if you like.

OK, here's a different one. This one actually can be solved without further information if you happen to think of it, but you can also easily ask questions for this one as well. (This is one of the "classics" so no big surprise if someone's heard it.)

A man is lying dead, face down in the desert. He's wearing a backpack.
What happened?

You can still try to ask questions on the other one if you like and see what happens. Or someone else may be able to solve it. Maybe redhead would like it since she likes to just cut to the chase. :)

OK, here's a different one. This one actually can be solved without further information if you happen to think of it, but you can also easily ask questions for this one as well. (This is one of the "classics" so no big surprise if someone's heard it.)

A man is lying dead, face down in the desert. He's wearing a backpack.
What happened?

You can still try to ask questions on the other one if you like and see what happens. Or someone else may be able to solve it. Maybe redhead would like it since she likes to just cut to the chase. :)

Skydiving accident? I will think more on the first one now.

The woman had no fingernails?

skydiving accident? I will think more on the first one now.

You really got that that quick? Perhaps that's just not something that occurs to me cause I don't think about flying or skydiving. Just depends on our mindset.

But you also see they can sometimes be answered without questions. :)

I need a harder one.

The woman had no fingernails?

Her fingernails are irrelevant.

(I'm trying to figure out why she can't be punished just cause of having no fingernails.)

Her fingernails are irrelevant.

(I'm trying to figure out why she can't be punished just cause of having no fingernails.)

I heard once a person with no fingernails couldn't be prosecuted. I thought it was worth a try.

I have to wonder where you heard that. The answer is completely legitimate, and not based on some obscure, weird law. However, it is unusual.

If you would like to have the answer, I can give it. Or you can continue to ponder it. If you want to continue pondering, I can also do another puzzle in the meantime.

We seem to be on at way different times of the day huh? Anyway, I don't think I will get this one, so if you would like you can post the answer and a new one or whatever you would like to do.

My first guess was that the sister had passed away during the trial. But usually the first thing I think of is too easy and never it. It's cause they were siamese twins.

OK new one, which will probably require the questions. But it seems I said that last time.

A man is lying dead, face down in the desert. There's a match near his outstretched hand.

And no it's not the same guy. :D

Oh, yes -- I'm not exactly a morning person! Though we have been on at the same time before.

My first guess was that the sister had passed away during the trial. But usually the first thing I think of is too easy and never it. It's cause they were siamese twins.

OK new one, which will probably require the questions. But it seems I said that last time.

A man is lying dead, face down in the desert. There's a match near his outstretched hand.

And no it's not the same guy. :D

Oh, yes -- I'm not exactly a morning person! Though we have been on at the same time before.

So this is a one for questions? Good. The times we were on at the same time were lucky. I tried finding your schedule so I could be here when you were. All right, I am going to do some thinking.

Was the match already burned?

Was his death an accident?

Was he killed?

Was he lighting a cigarette and a guy fell out of an airplane and the guy who fell out of the airplane didn't get his parachute open and land on the guy with the match?

Sorry for the last one.

You were trying to find my schedule? That cracked me up. We aren't that far off time zones, but you seem to be around in the mornings, I work more like a second shift and don't do mornings. I may be on here afternoons for a short time, but usually it's late into the evening, or very late after midnight, cause as everyone knows, I'm a vampire. (I wasn't on at all yesterday - very hectic day.)


Was the match already burned?

No.


Was his death an accident?

No.


Was he killed?

I assume you mean by someone else. No.



Was he lighting a cigarette and a guy fell out of an airplane and the guy who fell out of the airplane didn't get his parachute open and land on the guy with the match?

ROTFL! But that is rather creative.

Arg! Another thread which goes unnoticed by me!

Was the guy stung by a scorpion at night before he could get light and dropped the match? He tried to find the match, but the poison took over his body just before he got the match...

Did the man smoke?

Did the man have a kerosene lamp? Candle?

Did the man have something to rub the match to light it up?

Yea, I was trying to find your time zone and what times you were on at. I about figured it out. Anyway,

Did the guy commit suicide?

Did he pour a flammable liquid on himself?

Did he die from the fumes if so?

Arg! Another thread which goes unnoticed by me!

Wondered if you were just busy with homework again. Are you on the ff skin - you said there was some problem finding threads.


Was the guy stung by a scorpion at night before he could get light and dropped the match? He tried to find the match, but the poison took over his body just before he got the match...

Interesting. No.


Did the man smoke?

Irrelevant.


Did the man have a kerosene lamp? Candle?

No.


Did the man have something to rub the match to light it up?

Irrelevant.

Did the guy commit suicide?

Sort of.


Did he pour a flammable liquid on himself?

No.


Did he die from the fumes if so?

No.

I've been avoiding these because they make my head spin, but I'll give it a go. :o

Does the match have anything to do with his death?

Did he die of natural causes? (ETA - just saw the "sorta" suicide)

There is no mention of a vehicle. Is there a car? Did someone drop him off and drive away? Did he walk or run into the desert?

I've been avoiding these because they make my head spin, but I'll give it a go. :o

You're confused. That's just the alcohol.


Does the match have anything to do with his death?

Yes it's relevant.


Did he die of natural causes? (ETA - just saw the "sorta" suicide)

No.


Is there a car?

No.


Did someone drop him off and drive away?

No.


Did he walk or run into the desert?

No.

For anyone just joining, we're doing the question in post #19. I'll try to re-post it every time a new page pops up. (Since it's not in my original thread that's on every page.)

Ha - I wish it were the alcohol, but they frown on that at work. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Has the match been struck?

Did he fall from the sky? Such as from an airplane? Helicopter?

Did he arrive via water? For example, a flash flood?

Ha - I wish it were the alcohol, but they frown on that at work. Go figure. :rolleyes:

These rude people we work for, expecting you to actually work and behave yourself, and all at the same time. I tell you...


Has the match been struck?

No.


Did he fall from the sky?

Yes.


Such as from an airplane?

No.


Helicopter?

No.



Did he arrive via water? For example, a flash flood?

No.

A man is lying dead, face down in the desert. There's a match near his outstretched hand.

Ha. It just struck me. There's a Ngaio Marsh book called A Man Lay Dead.

From a balloon?

Which he tried to light the thingamajig to make the balloon rise but failed to do so and fell down :p

They gave up on me behaving myself a long time ago, so they're fine as long as I don't drink. :cool:

I like Unky's suggestion - a hot-air balloon?

Fell off a witch's broom? (hah - I'm almost a poet.)

A glider?

A large bird? (What? It could happen. Be right back - have to freshen my drink.)

Wait - maybe it's Santa. A sleigh?

A UFO?




(PS - I just read a good one for the AMHD board. What two things in the air can make a girl pregnant?)

(PS - I just read a good one for the AMHD board. What two things in the air can make a girl pregnant?)

Santa and the bird brings the baby? :confused:

Santa and the bird brings the baby? :confused:

Well, that's not the answer I'm thinking of - it will make you blush. :eek:

PS - it doesn't have to be 2 things off my list above.

(Am I going to be in trouble for hijacking this thread?)

Well, that's not the answer I'm thinking of - it will make you blush. :eek:

PS - it doesn't have to be 2 things off my list above.

(Am I going to be in trouble for hijacking this thread?)

Still at a lost... a balloon with its 'driver' :confused:

From a balloon?

Yes.


which he tried to light the thingamajig to make the balloon rise but failed to do so and fell down :p

Too easy.


Fell off a witch's broom? (hah - I'm almost a poet.)

No, and no you're not.


A glider?

No.


A large bird? (What? It could happen. Be right back - have to freshen my drink.)

Sure it could happen. I've seen it in cartoons. But I'll have what you're having.


Wait - maybe it's Santa. A sleigh?

Wrong time of year.


A UFO?

It was until Unky identified it.


(Am I going to be in trouble for hijacking this thread?)

Not if you give me some of what you're drinking.

Still at a lost... a balloon with its 'driver' :confused:

Unky, it was totally unrelated to Morgaine's question. I will put the hidden answer here. I'm a little embarrassed now.

Her legs.

We should get back to Morgaine's puzzle. Why would he have a match that wasn't struck?

Was he planning to strike the match but something happened to stop him?

Was the match being used for some other reason than a match is normally used and that's why it wasn't lit?

Is it relevant that his arm was stretched out?

The match was near his stretched out arm. Was he reaching for it? Did he want to light it? Possibly to see something in the dark?

So... that's it? :confused:

EDIT: Okay, but I still don't get the pregnant thingy... bah, I'll leave it.

I think we still have to figure out why he's dead. All we know is that he was in a hot air balloon.

Was there a problem with the balloon?

Did he jump? Was he pushed? Did he accidentally fall out?

As for the pregnant girl - you're actually embarrassed? LOL. But poor Unky doesn't get it. (I looked at your answer, cause I was a bit lost as to what you two were talking about and wasn't even sure what that was in reference to or who it was even addressed to. Oh, well, I would have never thought of that.)

Was he planning to strike the match but something happened to stop him?

No.


Was the match being used for some other reason than a match is normally used and that's why it wasn't lit?

Yes.


Is it relevant that his arm was stretched out?

No.


The match was near his stretched out arm. Was he reaching for it? Did he want to light it? Possibly to see something in the dark?

No, no and no.


Was there a problem with the balloon?

Yes.


Did he jump?

Yes.


Was he pushed?

No.


Did he accidentally fall out?

No.

Would the match have saved him?

Is the match intact?

Did he use the match the way he intended to? Did he succeed?

I have no idea where we are going, just asking questions... maybe something will come...

Guy realized his balloon was going to crash if he didn't get it lit, and he couldn't get it lit so he thought he would live if he jumped. Maybe because he thought he was over water and thought he could survive the jump instead of the crash.

Was he alone in the balloon?

The match was being used for an alternate reason. He didn't plan to strike it. Was it to draw lots?

I'm thinking the balloon was carrying too much weight so the passengers decided someone had to leave. He drew the short match. (It seems like it might have been smarter to just land the balloon, but hey... it's a puzzle.)

Was he alone in the balloon?

The match was being used for an alternate reason. He didn't plan to strike it. Was it to draw lots?

I'm thinking the balloon was carrying too much weight so the passengers decided someone had to leave. He drew the short match. (It seems like it might have been smarter to just land the balloon, but hey ... it's a puzzle.)


Maybe the match was his twin.:rolleyes:

I thought maybe the match had an alternate meaning but had no idea what. I Like both answers above this.

I'm thinking the balloon was carrying too much weight so the passengers decided someone had to leave. He drew the short match. (It seems like it might have been smarter to just land the balloon, but hey ... it's a puzzle.)

I'm glad I kept reading cause I didn't want to have to answer if the match could have saved him. (Yeah, if he'd gotten a different one.)

This is not totally correct but it's close enough - you got the gist and the important part. (It's nearly impossible to get all the details.)

Rest of the details: Balloon got punctured and they were losing altitude, which is why they had too much weight. They dumped everything they could including personal effects & clothing. (Though no one ever asked if he had anything besides the match.) So all that was left was for someone to jump.

I'd have to presume they would have dropped too fast for a safe landing and possibly killed everyone, but I never thought about it. What I did think about, however, is why he was hanging onto that match for dear life. :p (Maybe he was pretending it was rosary beads.)

BTW, for someone who isn't sure about these puzzles, you've asked good questions and you got it, so you obviously aren't exactly terrible at them. :-)

I'm racking my brain right now as this reminds me of something I just watched where the person who died held onto something for dear life and you had to wonder why. I'm thinking it was on Criminal Minds. Great - I'll wake up in the middle of the night remembering what it was.

Does anyone else want to take the helm? (I've got places that have a ton of these, most of which I've never looked at the answers yet.) Not that I mind cause it's loads of fun, but it's also fun to do the other side occasionally.

Kitkat22 agrees : Darn it ! I was feeling so smart! Egad!!!!

Kit - You are smart. Sometimes I just crack up at your responses - they cut to the chase, are witty, and stated so perfectly.

Morgaine - I'll try one, but I should probably wait until Tuesday. We are heading to Yosemite for the long weekend, leaving at noon tomorrow. I don't know if it would finish in time.

I'm racking my brain right now as this reminds me of something I just watched where the person who died held onto something for dear life and you had to wonder why. I'm thinking it was on Criminal Minds. Great - I'll wake up in the middle of the night remembering what it was.

Was it Rossi who kept the bracelet of the mother who was killed? The three kids were the only survivors.

As a note, I've found that most things in these can be taken quite literally. That is, a match is a match. These aren't word play puzzles. But you also can't read things into it that aren't there, so they can be tricky in that way. Most of them also tend to be realistically possible (as in, no magic, etc.), though many are highly improbable and a little ridiculous.

Was it Rossi who kept the bracelet of the mother who was killed? The three kids were the only survivors. ?

Oops - I hit "agrees" by accident. I am thinking it was someone who died and was holding something in their arms. I know it will come to me at some point.

How about I do another in the meantime, and you can do one when that is finished. I've got a full seven days in a row off both my jobs (yeah!) so I'm available to keep checking in. I do have some stuff I desperately need to get done while I have time, but it doesn't take me long to jump on and answer a few questions.

How about I do another in the meantime, and you can do one when that is finished. I've got a full seven days in a row off both my jobs (yeah!) so I'm available to keep checking in. I do have some stuff I desperately need to get done while I have time, but it doesn't take me long to jump on and answer a few questions.

Sounds like fun. That will also give me time to find a good one. Good for you - 7 days off. I'm counting the days to October 9 when I get married and have almost 3 weeks off.

OK, I admit to some reluctancy on this one because I feel like it's difficult and more pieces to put together. But it is another one of the "classics" so I suppose it wouldn't be if people hated it. So I'll give it a go.

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

OK, I admit to some reluctancy on this one because I feel like it's difficult and more pieces to put together. But it is another one of the "classics" so I suppose it wouldn't be if people hated it. So I'll give it a go.

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

I've read this one before so I'll have to bow out.

OK, there's too many of us posting at once. Stop that! If you do find one you like, you might PM and pose the scenario and see if it's one I know.

Since you're here, you can start the questions, but I really need to spend some time out in the yard - one of those many things I'm trying to get done. But I'll pop back in here and there.

I'd do another, but you're leaving tomorrow anyway. OK, I really AM going to head out to the yard now. Really. Really I am.

I've read this one before so I'll have to bow out.

The train is on fire and he is in one of the cars that is not on fire?

Current new one:

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

Current new one:

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

He took the train. His friends who were non smokers drove a car and crashed.

The train is on fire and he is in one of the cars that is not on fire?

Um, no.

He took the train. His friends who were non smokers drove a car and crashed.

No. And I'd be really shocked if anyone simply 'guessed' this without asking the questions.

Does Switzerland has any significance?

Does the man smoke?

Did the car crash?

Did the car explode?

Was the car attacked?

Was it winter? Summer then?

Did the car had a break down in the middle of nowhere?

Is the non smoking car part of the train.

Is the man in a car by the train?

I tried to catch up with you lol. You got so quick into getting to solve those :p

I tried to catch up with you lol. You got so quick into getting to solve those :p

A non smking car. The others could be on fire. Or he could be driving by
A train from Switzerland. The non smoking car could be broken down on the tracks. He is in the train and a car full of non smokers hit the train.:confused:

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

Does Switzerland has any significance?

I don't think so.


Does the man smoke?

Irrelevant.


Did the car crash?

No.


Did the car explode?

No.


Was the car attacked?

Yes, by killer tomatoes. Er, sorry. No.


Was it winter? Summer then?

Irrelevant.


Did the car had a break down in the middle of nowhere?

No.

Is the non smoking car part of the train.

Yes.


Is the man in a car by the train?

No.

I tried to catch up with you lol. You got so quick into getting to solve those :p

That may be, but it's seriously doubtful anyone would simply guess this. It's pretty, um, convoluted.

I noticed no questions from Adam this morning. Maybe I should wake him up with a PM as well. :D

Did the non smoking car get detached from the train?

Did he initially intend to be in the non smoking car?

Was the man in the machine room of the train?

Did the train pass near a mountain?

Did the train stop on its way (or slowed down drastically) for any reason?

Was the man in the train?

Was the man already dead when he started his voyage/trip?

Did the non smoking car get detached from the train?

No.


Did he initially intend to be in the non smoking car?

Irrelevant.


Was the man in the machine room of the train?

No.


Did the train pass near a mountain?

Good possibility.


Did the train stop on its way (or slowed down drastically) for any reason?

No.


Was the man in the train?

Yes.


Was the man already dead when he started his voyage/trip?

No.

Something I'm not sure about...

Are the non smoking car and the train in which the man was separate entities?

Was the man in a car in the train? (I saw 'by' up there... is this the same question? Sorry if it is)

Did anything unusual happen to the non smoking car?

Did the man get out of the train during this 'unusual' occurrence?

Because there's now been a confusion caused over this car, let's clear this up. It's a car on the train. It's not word play. There is no automobile. The "non-smoking car" is exactly what it appears to be. Granted, that does not establish where our man is, though it also says he's returning "by train." So he's on a train and the non-smoking car is part of a train. And your first question here establishes they are one and the same train.


Are the non smoking car and the train in which the man was separate entities?

No.


Was the man in a car in the train?

Yes.


Did anything unusual happen to the non smoking car?

No.


Did the man get out of the train during this 'unusual' occurrence?

No.

Were there people in the non smoking car who died?

Was there something that wasn't in good condition in the non smoking car?

Did something relevant made him not go in the non smoking car?

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

Were there people in the non smoking car who died?

No.


Was there something that wasn't in good condition in the non smoking car?

No.


Did something relevant made him not go in the non smoking car?

No.

Ok, I will give a few whacks here although I have a feeling this one will be difficult, with little information to go off. Also, it is early here so bear with me on my questions. A lot may be irrevelant.

Did the smoke save him?

Did he smoke?

Was he in Switzerland for business?

Was he in Switzerland for pleasure?

Was the train full of people?

Did everyone in the non-smoking rooms die?

Did the train crash?

Was it sitting still?

Were the smoking rooms in the front of the train?

Were the smoking rooms in the back of the train?

Was he traveling alone?

I can't think of anything right now, hopefully I get a few yes's here. Now after all that smoke talk, it is time for a cigarette.

Lol, later Adam :)

Well, getting back... here's a couple more...

Did anyone else died?

If he was in the non smoking car, would he have:
Been shot?
Been poisoned?
Been injured?
Been asphyxiated?
Been stung by a bug?
Had the head cut?
A stroke?
A complication of health?
Bled to death?

Now that I'm thinking about something...
Would he have lost his life?
Would he have not enough food (or any food at all)?
Would he have not enough to drink (or any drink at all)?

Maybe something will trigger another thought... anyway, you can group many and say only once, yes, no or irrelevant instead of saying several 'no' or 'yes' or 'irrelevant'

It's funny cause my brother called just as I was about to answer these and then started asking me questions and solved it. Of course, I was talking about it and gave one thing away. But it still made me realize just how convoluted this puzzle is. Hope y'all brought food and drinks. :p


Did the smoke save him?

No.


Did he smoke?

Already asked, but irrelevant.


Was he in Switzerland for business?

"Business" as in work, no.


Was he in Switzerland for pleasure?

No.


Was the train full of people?

Yes.


Did everyone in the non-smoking rooms die?

This was asked earlier: Were there people in the non smoking car who died? No.

(Everyone couldn't have died if no one died.)


Did the train crash?

No.


Was it sitting still?

No.


Were the smoking rooms in the front of the train?

Irrelevant.



Were the smoking rooms in the back of the train?

Irrelevant.


Was he traveling alone?

I'd say yes.

Did anyone else died?

No.


If he was in the non smoking car, would he have:
Been stung by a bug?
A stroke?
A complication of health?

No.


If he was in the non smoking car, would he have:
Been shot?
Been poisoned?
Had the head cut?
Been injured?
Been asphyxiated?
Bled to death?

All possibilities.


Would he have lost his life?

It says he would have died. Isn't that the same thing? (If not, you would have to clarify what you mean.)


Would he have not enough food (or any food at all)?
Would he have not enough to drink (or any drink at all)?

It's easier if you don't ask "not" questions - too easy to misinterpret.

Food and drink not relevant.

This:


Did the train pass near a mountain? Good possibility.

I was trying to think of other possibilities, which conceivably could exist, but this is the best possibility. (And probably exactly why someone placed it in Switzerland.) So this is a Yes.

I was thinking about 'dying' of thirst, or hunger or things like that instead of losing his life... :o

If someone else have taken his place in the non smoking car, would (s)he have died?

I'm a little out of ideas... :(

Did someone kill him?

Did he kill himself?

I was thinking about 'dying' of thirst, or hunger or things like that instead of losing his life... :o

In that case, he would have "lost his life." (I think. :p)


If someone else have taken his place in the non smoking car, would (s)he have died?

No.


Did someone kill him?
Did he kill himself?

He's not dead! Technically I should tell you to re-phrase, but since you've touched on the subject, and getting stuck, I'll be nice and say he would have killed himself.


Since you're running out of ideas... um, I noticed Adam's always on in the mornings (his time) and he hasn't been here over the weekend. Makes me wonder if he's only getting on at work. I could assume he'll be around Monday morning - we can see what questions he comes up with.

In the meantime, I'll try coming up with a hint that's not too much of a give-away. I'll also post a summary of questions so it's easy to go over them. Concentrate on questions on the same subject and see what they have in common, or sometimes more importantly, what they don't. I have noticed two areas that no one is asking much about, and areas that have been concentrated on too much - maybe that's what my hint should be around.

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.


Summary thus far:

Does Switzerland has any significance? I don't think so. [revised: only significance may be what was stated in post #88]

Does the man smoke? Irrelevant.

Did the car crash? No.

Did the car explode? No.

Was the car attacked? No.

Was it winter? Summer then? Irrelevant.

Did the car had a break down in the middle of nowhere? No.

Is the non smoking car part of the train. Yes.

Is the man in a car by the train? No.

Did the non smoking car get detached from the train? No.

Did he initially intend to be in the non smoking car? Irrelevant.

Was the man in the machine room of the train? No.

Did the train pass near a mountain? Good possibility. [Also revised per post #88 to Yes.)

Did the train stop on its way (or slowed down drastically) for any reason? No.

Was the man in the train? Yes.

Was the man already dead when he started his voyage/trip? No.

Are the non smoking car and the train in which the man was separate entities? No.

Was the man in a car in the train? Yes.

Did anything unusual happen to the non smoking car? No.

Did the man get out of the train during this 'unusual' occurrence? No

Were there people in the non smoking car who died? No.

Was there something that wasn't in good condition in the non smoking car? No.

Did something relevant made him not go in the non smoking car? No

Did the smoke save him? No.

Was he in Switzerland for business? "Business" as in work, no.

Was he in Switzerland for pleasure? No.

Was the train full of people? Yes.

Did the train crash? Already establish that the train never crashed.

Was it sitting still? No. [And was already asked if it ever stopped.]

Were the smoking rooms in the front of the train? Were the smoking rooms in the back of the train? Irrelevant.

Was he traveling alone? I'd say yes.

Did anyone else died? No.

If he was in the non smoking car, would he have:
been stung by a bug?
a stroke?
a complication of health?
No.

If he was in the non smoking car, would he have:
been shot?
been poisoned?
had the head cut?
been injured?
been asphyxiated?
bled to death?
All possibilities.

Would he have not enough food (or any food at all)?
Would he have not enough to drink (or any drink at all)?
Food and drink not relevant.

If someone else have taken his place in the non smoking car, would (s)he have died? No.

Did someone kill him? Did he kill himself?
He's not dead! But he would have killed himself.

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.


Summary thus far:

Does Switzerland has any significance? I don't think so. [revised: only significance may be what was stated in post #88]

Does the man smoke? Irrelevent.

Did the car crash? No.

Did the car explode? No.

Was the car attacked? No.

Was it winter? Summer then? Irrelevant.

Did the car had a break down in the middle of nowhere? No.

Is the non smoking car part of the train. Yes.

Is the man in a car by the train? No.

Did the non smoking car get detached from the train? No.

Did he initially intend to be in the non smoking car? Irrelevant.

Was the man in the machine room of the train? No.

Did the train pass near a mountain? Good possibility. [Also revised per post #88 to Yes.)

Did the train stop on its way (or slowed down drastically) for any reason? No.

Was the man in the train? Yes.

Was the man already dead when he started his voyage/trip? No.

Are the non smoking car and the train in which the man was separate entities? No.

Was the man in a car in the train? Yes.

Did anything unusual happen to the non smoking car? No.

Did the man get out of the train during this 'unusual' occurrence? No

Were there people in the non smoking car who died? No.

Was there something that wasn't in good condition in the non smoking car? No.

Did something relevant made him not go in the non smoking car? No

Did the smoke save him? No.

Was he in Switzerland for business? "Business" as in work, no.

Was he in Switzerland for pleasure? No.

Was the train full of people? Yes.

Did the train crash? Already establish that the train never crashed.

Was it sitting still? No. [And was already asked if it ever stopped.]

Were the smoking rooms in the front of the train? Were the smoking rooms in the back of the train? Irrelevant.

Was he traveling alone? I'd say yes.

Did anyone else died? No.

If he was in the non smoking car, would he have:
been stung by a bug?
a stroke?
a complication of health?
No.

If he was in the non smoking car, would he have:
been shot?
been poisoned?
had the head cut?
been injured?
been asphyxiated?
bled to death?
All possibilities.

Would he have not enough food (or any food at all)?
Would he have not enough to drink (or any drink at all)?
Food and drink not relevant.

If someone else have taken his place in the non smoking car, would (s)he have died? No.

Did someone kill him? Did he kill himself?
He's not dead! But he would have killed himself.




Was he a smoker?
Did he know someone in the smokers car?
Did he do something in Switzerland ?
Was it against the Law?

Was he a smoker?

Second question on the summary I just did. Irrelevant.


Did he know someone in the smokers car?

No.


Did he do something in Switzerland?

Yes.


Was it against the Law?

No.

Sorry for the last two questions, I don't know what got through my head :(

Does the man travel with a weapon?
Was there something in the non smoking car which the man could have used to kill himself if he was there?
Was there someone waiting for him in the non smoking car?
Does the train receive messages from the country such as through telephone/television/telegraph/etc ?

Sorry for the last two questions, I don't know what got through my head :(

A brain fart. They're highly contagious too so stay away from me. :eek:


Does the man travel with a weapon?

Possibly.


Was there something in the non smoking car which the man could have used to kill himself if he was there?

Yes, but the man would be in there as well. (Tough to answer without being misleading. All the same stuff would be available either way.)


Was there someone waiting for him in the non smoking car?

No.


Does the train receive messages from the country such as through telephone/television/telegraph/etc ?

Irrelevant.

I'm going to drop a slight hint, just because no one is getting anything close to where they should be, and because it's convoluted and difficult, we need to be heading a better direction.

And that would be: get off the kick about the non-smoking car. What needs established has been: it didn't wreck, no one was in there who was dangerous, no one else would have died, etc.

Hmm, still nothing from Adam. I forgot it's Labor Day here. If he only posts at work, that would explain it.

Yep, you were right, I only post at work since I spend most of my time at work. I was off yesterday for Labor Day. I think I have gotten so far off track on this puzzle that I need time to think of where I need to be going with it.

I was thinking maybe he learned something too depressing that he would have killed himself if he learned it on his way from Switzerland...

I don't know... was the man following some treatment? I mean... was he on drugs?

EDIT: Some typos... ugh.

For some reason I have a feeling I am going to ask questions that have already been asked again. If I do so please forgive me.

Ok, so a quick conclusion in my head that you can answer yes or no to:

Nobody on the entire train died. Nothing was out of the ordinary.
Something would have caused this specific man to die if he would have been in the nonsmoking car.

Ok, a few more questions:

Did the man have medical problems?

Did something he did in Switzerland relavent to this?(sorry, this may have been asked)

Was there someone he didn't like in the nonsmoking room?

Was there something that could have caused him much harm in the nonsmoking room?

I was thinking maybe he learned something do depressing that he would have killed himself if he learned in on this way from Switzerland...

Hmm... that's not quite right, no. There's something to that, but not the way you've said it.



I don't know... was the man following some treatment? I mean... was he on drugs?

I think you mean the illegal kind? Like he was in for rehab or something? No. (If not, clarify.)

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

For some reason I have a feeling I am going to ask questions that have already been asked again. If I do so please forgive me.

I'll consider it. :D


Nobody on the entire train died.

Correct.


Nothing was out of the ordinary.

Correct.


Something would have caused this specific man to die if he would have been in the nonsmoking car.

Yes but... (see last question)

(by the way, thank you for saying "would have" instead of "would of" - one of my little pet peeves and makes me nutso)


Did the man have medical problems?

Had.


Did something he did in Switzerland relavent to this?

Yes.


Was there someone he didn't like in the nonsmoking room?

Irrelevant.


Was there something that could have caused him much harm in the nonsmoking room?

NO!

I will repeat: get off the kick about the non-smoking car. You already know everything you need to know about it.

I understand why - the first thing I thought of was the train wrecked and the non-smoking car got smashed up. I was also thinking about the people who were in the non-smoking car. The way it's stated in the scenario leads one to think this way.

If the man had been in a non-smoking car, he would have died. But think about what that statement does not say.


Something would have caused this specific man to die if he would have been in the nonsmoking car.

I had to read this very carefully to make sure it was actually a true statement. We've already established that he would have killed himself - meaning no one else would have done it and he wouldn't have had a stroke or something. But everyone is making assumptions about the "something" that would have caused it - and that assumption is a stumbling block.

BTW, welcome back, Adam. This one is tough so the more brains at work, the better. :) (This is a puzzle for people who like a real challenge.)

I just now myself caught onto this: the statement reads "If he had been in a non-smoking car..." You all have changed that statement. How? (You've even got me doing it.)

Was there something/someone in the train who stopped him from killing himself?

Was there something/someone in the train who stopped him from killing himself?

Yes. :D

Phew! At least, something moved...

However, this doesn't ring another bell :(

Maybe, I'll ask for clarification now. Did someone prevent him from suicide?

Did this man knew that person?

Phew! At least, something moved...

Yes. Did I stress strongly enough to quit with that non-smoking car bit? ;)


Did someone prevent him from suicide?

No.


Did this man knew that person?

N/A due to above answer. :p

Now... what thing could that be...

Lol, I'm tempted to ask questions about the 'something' to know what that is...

Is the 'identity' of the 'something' relevant? (I mean like if it were a chair, would it be relevant that it was a chair?)

Is the 'identity' of the 'something' relevant? (I mean like if it were a chair, would it be relevant that it was a chair?)

Yes.

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

(Last summary #91 page 10.)

*sigh* this will get long...

Is the object smaller than a football?
Is the object made (including partially made) of metal?
Did the object remind the man of something?

*sigh* this will get long...

It doesn't have to. It's right there, about to bite you in the nose. No, not the answer, just a really important point that would help a lot, that everyone is missing.


Is the object smaller than a football?
Is the object made (including partially made) of metal?

There could have been several "objects" involved. They're all smaller than a football. Some might even have metal, but most don't. (Go back and read the original scenario upsidedown.)


Did the object remind the man of something?

No.

There's really something I want to say here... but given the time, I think I'm going to wait for Adam to weigh in and see what questions he comes up with.

Have you ever played Obsidian? That whole game is like a big lateral thinking puzzle. Hmm, I should add that to my review of it.

Lol, no. Ok, thinking of more questions... and upside down =P

Sorry - I hope that didn't sound like Adam is somehow more important. It's just everyone thinks differently and it helps to have people coming in from different angles all the time. He'll benefit from what you've asked as well.

Am I making it worse? Sorry - a little much on the wine tonight. :)

Is the object cigarettes?

Pipes?

Sorry - I hope that didn't sound like Adam is somehow more important. It's just everyone thinks differently and it helps to have people coming in from different angles all the time. He'll benefit from what you've asked as well.

Am I making it worse? Sorry - a little much on the wine tonight. :)

Nah, it's OK. Adam is just too good at these :p

He doesn't think so. I'm not always too fabulous either. (I was at a complete loss on the albatross one. Just gave up on even trying to ask anything. LOL.)

Now my brother - he's pretty good. He'd probably have a great time hanging around on this, but I'd kind of prefer he hang around somewhere else. :D

He doesn't think so. I'm not always too fabulous either. (I was at a complete loss on the albatross one. Just gave up on even trying to ask anything. LOL.)

Now my brother - he's pretty good. He'd probably have a great time hanging around on this, but I'd kinda prefer he hang around somewhere else. :D

Of course :p

I struggle at whether to make some friends sigh up in the forum... I tried with one or two, but they didn't ever come back... I guess that it's just pointless...

Everyone doesn't want to do the same things. You can't make them want to. It's easy to decide that what you like is exciting to everyone else too, especially friends, whom you presumably have stuff in common with. But alas, it annoyingly doesn't work that way. :rolleyes:

OK, I'm being even more of a vampire than usual. Have to start my fall work schedule tomorrow and I'm working on not getting much sleep here. :) (The wine was actually to mellow me out and hopefully make me a little tired so I could get to sleep. Alas, it didn't quite work out that way.) I need to force myself to climb into bed...

Seems like you didn't see my questions :p


Is the object cigarettes?

Pipes?

I am back, but having a bad day. So my mind is clogged and won't help me think clearly. Otherwise, I think what was established earlier would have lit a fire under my arse by now and I would be closer.

Ok, so the man had a medical problem but does not anymore.

Since what he did in Switzerland was relavent, did he go there for his medical problem?

Did he have cancer?

Was he missing any body parts?

Well I will stop asking questions now until I can get these answered or else it will be pointless to go on.

Was there a doctor in the smoking car that saved him from a heart attack or choking?

Now I wonder about Unky's question, were cigarettes relavent? I'm sorry if I am going back to the smoking thing, but I am not trying to. Just wondering if cigarettes were it like Unky said.

Or maybe lighters? That's the only thing I knew that had metal.

You're right. I didn't see these. We were both posting at the same time and this one slipped through the cracks.


Is the object cigarettes?

Pipes?

Any and all of the above.

Ok, so the man had a medical problem but does not anymore.

Correct.


Since what he did in Switzerland was relavent, did he go there for his medical problem?

Yes.


Did he have cancer?

No.



Was he missing any body parts?

No.

Was there a doctor in the smoking car that saved him from a heart attack or choking?

It's already been established that he would have killed himself, so no. (Or at least, causing heart attacks or choking are not typical forms of suicide.)

A man is returning from Switzerland by train. If he had been in a non-smoking car he would have died.

Summary #2. (#1 post #91 on pg 10)

Did he know someone in the smokers car? No.

Did he do something in Switzerland? Yes.

Was it against the Law? No

Does the man travel with a weapon? Possibly.

Was there something in the non smoking car which the man could have used to kill himself if he was there?
Yes, but the man would be in there as well. (Tough to answer without being misleading. All the same stuff would be available either way.)

Was there someone waiting for him in the non smoking car? No.

Does the train receive messages from the country such as through telephone/television/telegraph/etc Irrelevant.

Was the man following some treatment? I mean... was he on drugs? I think you mean the illegal kind? Like he was in for rehab or something? No.

Nobody on the entire train died. Nothing was out of the ordinary. Correct.

Something would have caused this specific man to die if he would have been in the nonsmoking car.
Yes but...

Was there something that could have caused him much harm in the nonsmoking room? NO!

Did the man have medical problems? Had.

Did something he did in Switzerland relavent to this? Yes.

Was there someone he didn't like in the nonsmoking room? Irrelevant.

Was there something/someone in the train who stopped him from killing himself? Yes

Did someone prevent him from suicide? No.

Did this man knew that person? N/A due to above answer.

Is the 'identity' of the 'something' relevant? (I mean like if it were a chair, would it be relevant that it was a chair?) Yes.

Is the object cigarettes? Pipes? Any and all of the above.

Ok, so the man had a medical problem but does not anymore. Correct.

Since what he did in Switzerland was relavent, did he go there for his medical problem? Yes.

Did he have cancer? No.

Was he missing any body parts? No.

Was there a doctor in the smoking car that saved him from a heart attack or choking? It's already been established that he would have killed himself, so no. (And I also just noticed in this summary that it's already been established that no one else prevented his suicide.)

Was his medical problem a physical problem? (as opposed to mental)

I don't yet understand how a cigarette can save his life...

Does he live in Switzerland? (I've a feeling that's irrelevant though... )

Did he get the appropriate treatment in Switzerland?

Well, at least people are finally asking about the smoking car! :) In all this time, everyone concentrated on that non-smoking car that no one ever asked about where he is, as opposed to where he's not.

I think we are close.

He accidentally lit himself on fire with a lighter/match/cigarette/cigar, and the non-smoking car wouldn't have had the fire extinguisher to put him out that the smoking car had.

Was his medical problem a physical problem? (as opposed to mental)

Yes.


I don't yet understand how a cigarette can save his life...

That's for me to know and you to find out. :D


Does he live in Switzerland? (I've a feeling that's irrelevant though... )

No. (He's returning from... but not terribly important at this point.)


Did he get the appropriate treatment in Switzerland?

Yes.

Was it the touch of a cigarette?

The smell of a cigarette?

The sight of a cigarette?

The taste of a cigarette?

The hearing of a cigarette? (I know this doesn't make sense but hey.)

Was his disease related to drugs? (Nicotine for example)

Wait, are there really 4 of us on here at the same time?? OMG! (Though I, needless to say, am not terribly awake. I'm thinking a nap would be good, as long as work is being so quiet.)

He accidently lit himself on fire with a lighter/match/cigarette/cigar, and the non-smoking car wouldn't have had the fire extinguisher to put him out that the smoking car had.

LOL. Not quite.

You are leaving us at such a good time when all of us are here? Oh well, I probably would never get it anyway. I am about an inch away from losing my mind.

Was it the touch of a cigarette?

The smell of a cigarette?

No.


The sight of a cigarette?

Yes.


The taste of a cigarette?

The hearing of a cigarette?

No.


(I know this doesn't make sense but hey.)

Makes perfect sense. My brother asked most of these, one right after the other - he asked about the smell first,

Ok, he seen a cigarette and it saved his life because of his medical condition that he had fixed in Switzerland?

Was his disease related to drugs? (Nicotine for example)

No.

EDIT: Sorry, posted at the same time :o

Ok... it was the sight of a cigarette... which didn't reminded him of anything relevant...

Was it a disease caused by a virus?

I may be getting to nowhere =S

Ok, he seen a cigarette and it saved his life because of his medical condition that he had fixed in Switzerland?

Uh yeah sort of. They're related.

I do think I caught up finally. Wake me up if I missed something. :)

Was the cigarette the cause of this medical condition?

Going out on a long limb here, was the man once blind?

Going out on a long limb here, was the man once blind?

I think you got something. Since morgaine has been saying this one was convoluted, I won't be surprised if he was blind.

Was the cigarette the cause of this medical condition?

No.

I guess time will tell. I think I know where to go with this one if so. If I am right I will back out and let you finish it and see if I was right.

Going out on a long limb here, was the man once blind?

Yes. :p

(Unky, I finally saw your edit, but given this question, I'm just going to skip it.)

I think you got something. Since morgaine has been saying this one was convoluted, I won't be surprised if he was blind.

Well, I wasn't exaggerating. ;)

Yes I think I know it. Unky, it is up to you. I think I might put my answer down below here in white so Unky can keep going if he wants.

Here it is:

The man was blind but is not any longer thanks to the procedure in Switzerland. He is in a smoking room on the way back and the lights go out or they go through a tunnel, depending on day or night. He thinks he is blind again so he would want to kill himself, but thanks to the cigarette he saw in the dark, he was fine.

Yes, you can disregard it, as I focused my next question.

But I'm still at a loss lol.

I can't figure out how the mere sight of a cigarette would have saved him...

Was he depressed at life that he discovered the cigarette to 'escape' reality?

Now, this is a really dumb question -_-

Was he depressed at life that he discovered the cigarette to 'escape' reality?



No, LOL.

Up to you if you want to keep going. I imagine it's getting late for you. But I'll be around later, depending on how soon you get back on after getting up.

Yay! My brain needs a vacation now.

I don't know what to think, and yes, it's getting late here...

But to commit suicide if he didn't see a cigarette?

It was said that whether he smokes or not is irrelevant... he got on the smoking compartment of the train... being blind, he may not have noticed that there are different cars, one smoking and the other one non smoking...

Does the man like cigarette smoke?

Aww... this is becoming ridiculous...

Unky, think of this. My question is if he WAS blind. It was answered yes. He is no longer blind.

Not to mention that it was also established that his medical condition was indeed solved in Switzerland. There's definite relevance in this. (My brother argued this wasn't relevant, until I reminded him that your average person would never have reacted in this manner. It also provides a clue.)

He could see fine when he got on the train. He knew what car he was getting on. No, it doesn't matter whether he's a smoker or not, because it doesn't matter why he was in a smoking car. (Maybe all the non-smoking ones were filled, or he didn't care, or maybe he does smoke.)

Think a bit about the circumstances he was in. And maybe instead of how a cigarette could save him, what would make him want to kill himself?

(You sound frustrated. Frustration takes the fun away. You can always just look at the answer, or if you really don't want to, I can give more hints. But I suspect you may be in bed by now, so maybe the break will make you feel better. Whenever I'm really stuck on one of my computer games it makes me batty and ticks me off, so going to bed and getting away for a while help.)

No, I wasn't frustrated :)

I was just thinking aloud and I'm not finding the right questions to move forward. I forgot to add 'before' in one of my sentences that is 'he couldn't see in which car he was travelling before, and now, he can see'.

Hmm...

He is 'new' to seeing everything. Maybe he would have seen stressed people in the nonsmoking car? But this makes the cigarette irrelevant then.

Maybe the 'ugliness' in the world... the fact that people are not enjoying what they have (that is the sight which he didn't have before being cured) ?

I would think that the mental condition of the man is that he's happy to discover a new world, a world full of colours. Then, if he came to see how some people were taking that for granted, it will be as if he got cured pointlessly and that maybe, he would have been better if he was still blind?

No, I wasn't frustrated :)

Well, good, though it did sound like it.



He is 'new' to seeing everything. Maybe he would have seen stressed people in the nonsmoking car? But this makes the cigarette irrelevant then.

Yes it would. Not to mention that the non-smoking car really has absolutely nothing to do with it. You know the cigarettes are relevant, and they wouldn't be in a non-smoking car. So it was never a problem with that car - it was lack of cigarettes. :)


Maybe the 'ugliness' in the world... the fact that people are not enjoying what they have (that is the sight which he didn't have before being cured) ?

There's no reason to assume he was blind his whole life though. (Though I suppose having been even for a short time and getting it back would make you "see" things in a new way. I actually was very close to losing the sight in one of my eyes. It's just a bit on the spooky side.)


I would think that the mental condition of the man is that he's happy to discover a new world, a world full of colours.

What a weird coincidence. I finally looked up that island of yours last night and was talking to my brother about it, and somehow we got off on the British/American English thing. I said I'd have to keep an eye out for which you did - and here you conveniently use the word 'colour' - thanks for your cooperation. :D


Then, if he came to see how some people were taking that for granted, it will be as if he got cured pointlessly and that maybe, he would have been better if he was still blind.

Not at all. He should be happy to have his site. In these scenarios people do kill themselves over some weird stuff sometimes, but usually not for totally trivial reasons. People taking things for granted isn't necessarily trivial, but relative to someone wanting to take their life, it's very trivial.

As for being better if he was still blind... WAAAYYY off.

You're being too philosophical. The cigarettes -- and possible pipes, cigars, lighters, etc. my brother said marijuana LOL -- aren't representative of anything, they aren't an analogy. Take them literally.

Adam asked a series of questions about the cigarettes. Maybe go back and check that out. There's an important clue in there. There's also a question you asked back near the very start that has gone almost completely ignored and never brought up again.

(Why do I have a feeling you're going to shoot me when you find out the answer?)

Lol, I won't shoot anyone :p

Is it about the mountain? Well, I was thinking at the time that there might have been an rock slide and the car got crushed :o or maybe they passed through a tunnel where it was dark for a while, which now will mean that the man re-experienced 'blindness' for some time.

Lol, I won't shoot anyone :p

Oh whew! I did give fair warning.


Is it about the mountain? Well, I was thinking at the time that there might have been an rock slide and the car got crushed :o or maybe they passed through a tunnel where it was dark for a while, which now will mean that the man re-experienced 'blindness' for some time.

Yes, yes, go with it!

What?

Did they pass through a tunnel?

What?

Did they pass through a tunnel?

Yes.

So the 'ex-blind' was 'blind' again... he could see nothing in the car... but hey, since there are cigarettes there is light!

So... the cigarettes saved him by making think that he wasn't becoming blind again?

It's strange though... I thought that trains lit up their lamps when passing through a tunnel... =/

Good Job Unky! I knew it wouldn't be long before you got it. Also remember it is just a puzzle, so it doesn't have to be 100% accurate as far as lighting up and what not.

Morgaine, we will try and find one for you so you can take a break and solve one yourself.

That's really it! Gosh! I wonder why I didn't directly ask if the train passed through a tunnel earlier... could've saved some time. Ok, just tell me if there is anew thread :)

I actually found one and Morgaine has already said she doesn't know it. I'll get it posted. I thought you two might need a break, but it looks like you are ready to play. :)

Ok, I'll be ready :)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/games/yet-another-lateral-thinking-puzzle-506126.html

Here you go.

What day is it when the day after tomorrow is yesterday and today will be as far from Sunday as today was from Sunday, when the day before yesterday was tomorrow?

Wednesday? O_o

Wednesday? O_o

No... try again.

Thursday?

Thursday?

Still no...

Is there actually a solution to this?

Sunday will be my final word then.

I don't see anything else. Wednesday was a mistake I did. I didn't really mean it at first and forgot Saturday >.<

Is there actually a solution to this?

Sunday will be my final word then.

I don't see anything else. Wednesday was a mistake I did. I didn't really mean it at first and forgot Saturday >.<

The answer is indeed Sunday.

I've got dozens. Here's another one:

The leaky pipe.

A pipe sprung a leak on its underside so that it leaked 5 gallons of water per hour until the pipe was empty 4 hours later. The leak was not detected and the pipe was refilled but a second leak, of exactly the same size, occurred immediately. The pipe was now leaking at a rate of 10 gallons of water per hour but this time it took 3 hours to empty. Can you explain why?

The pipe was not full at first, and had 10 gallons of water less than its full capacity?

Maybe the second leak occurred further up the pipe, meaning that some way, the leak was above the surface of the water in the pipe?

The pipe was not full at first, and had 10 gallons of water less than its full capacity?

Maybe the second leak occured further up the pipe, meaning that some way, the leak was above the surface of the water in the pipe?

The pipe was at full capacity again.

You're getting close with the second leak's location.

Well, if you want math in this, the second leak was halfway up from the first leak to the top of the pipe.

Unless we are taking a real example, where the rate of flow of water will depend on the height of the water surface above the leak.

Well, if you want math in this, the second leak was halfway up from the first leak to the top of the pipe.

Unless we are taking a real example, where the rate of flow of water will depend on the height of the water surface above the leak.

Yes, the second leak was halfway up the pipe... so...

So, for the first hour, 10 gallons went away.

Then, the rate becomes 5 gal/hr

Since there are 10 gals remaining, it takes additional 2 hours for a total of 3 hours.

So, for the first hour, 10 gallons went away.

Then, the rate becomes 5 gal/hr

Since there are 10 gals remaining, it takes additional 2 hours for a total of 3 hours.

You've got it! Good job, Jerry.

My homework is right!

At a local school a teacher gave the children a few math problems for homework. The next day the teacher pulled Tom out and told him that he had all of his wrong.

His answers to the problems set were:

10+7=5

9+6=3

11+5=4

8+11=7

Tom was also right. How was this so?

It looks like time on a clock. For example, 10:00 plus 7 hours would be 5:00.

It looks like time on a clock. For example, 10:00 plus 7 hours would be 5:00.

That's it! Good job.

That's it! Good job.


Thanks. :) As Adam would say, can we have another one?

The Fire

The couple had just finished building their home and because the night would be very cold, they wanted to build a fire to keep warm. The wind outside was gusting at 40mph and they were soon very cozy and fell asleep. A few hours later they were both dead. What had gone wrong?

CLUES:
1. The home had not burned down.
2. The house had not blown down.
3. They had not suffocated.
4. They had not been burned to death.

The Fire

The couple had just finished building their home and because the night would be very cold, they wanted to build a fire to keep warm. The wind outside was gusting at 40mph and they were soon very cozy and fell asleep. A few hours later they were both dead. What had gone wrong?

CLUES:
1. The home had not burned down.
2. The house had not blown down.
3. They had not suffocated.
4. They had not been burned to death.

Is this a lateral thinking puzzle where we have to ask yes or no questions?

The fire switched off and they froze to death

... as opposed to being burned to death?

Is this a lateral thinking puzzle where we have to ask yes or no questions?

Yes, these are from the Mensa book "Lateral Thinking & Logical Deduction". Ask all the questions that you like.

No Jerry, the fire did NOT go out.

Did they die of natural causes?

Were they murdered?

Did the fire somehow lead to their death?

Is it relevant that the house is newly built?

Were they old?

Was the house made of wood?
Did the house has wooden supports?
Could the fire have burned these supports and the house crumbled down?

Did they get killed by someone?

Did they die of natural causes?

Were they murdered?

Did the fire somehow lead to their death?

Is it relevant that the house is newly built?

Were they old?

The fire did somehow lead to their death. The rest are "No" answers.

Was the house made of wood?
Did the house has wooden supports?
Could the fire have burned these supports and the house crumbled down?

Did they get killed by someone?

No to all 4.

Did the fire cause something to melt?

Did they die because of lack of oxygen? (I don't know if this is considered as suffocated, sorry if it is).

Did they sleep near the fire?

Did the fire somehow cause toxic fumes to be released into the air?

Were they Eskimos, and the fire was built on an ice floe, and the floor melted and they drowned?

I love logic puzzles, but I've often found that the answers are completely insanely ridiculous---so when I'm stuck, I throw out the oddest thing I can think of off the top of my head.

Were they Eskimos, and the fire was built on an ice floe, and the floor melted and they drowned?

Synnen, you are close, but not quite. Keep thinking along those lines.

I love logic puzzles, but I've often found that the answers are completely insanely ridiculous---so when I'm stuck, I throw out the oddest thing I can think of off the top of my head.

I feel the same way. I promise not to use any that seem ridiculous. It's just not fair to common logic.

They built one of those ice fishing huts on a lake. The floor of the hut melted and they drowned in the lake.

If that theory is close, I don't know what else to go off.

Was it the fire built on ice that was close?

Or the house built of something like ice or snow?

Was it the fire built on ice that was close?

Or the house built of something like ice or snow?

You're so close I have to give the answer.

They were explorers who had built an igloo. The fire was too big and melted the walls when they fell asleep. They both suffered extreme hypothermia and died.

That is a good one, I might have to use that one sometime.

I don't want to hog the thread. Who's next?

I jumped into these late, and I'm at work---so I don't want to jump in with the few I know and have you all either already have done it, or have to wait for my answers.