MOH Forum: Lateral Thinking

Lateral Thinking - I think NOT!

Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Mar 31, 2005

At <a href="http://rec-puzzles.org/lateral.html" title="rec.puzzles">rec.puzzles</a> we have for Paul Sloane's lateral thinking puzzle 13: 
The Deadly Party
A man went to a party and drank some of the punch. He then left early. Everyone else at the party who drank the punch subsequently died of poisoning. Why did the man not die? 
Paul Sloane's ‘solution’ (revealed later) is (apart from not supported by the puzzle wording) contrived and unsatisfying – or I think so, at least. 
My solution/reasoning is: 
Firstly, just because everybody who drank the punch subsequently died of poisoning doesn't mean that the punch was poisoned. In fact, the problem doesn’t say that only those who drank the punch died, the best that can be deduced is that some, but not necessarily all, of those who died had drunk the punch. 
Secondly, that one person drank the punch and was not poisoned suggests that the punch did not contain poison. 
The correct (i.e. my) solution is that the punch was not poisoned and that the other guests were poisoned by eating or drinking something else which was. 
Paul Sloane's solution is: 
The poison in the punch came from the ice cubes. When the man drank the punch the ice was fully frozen. Gradually it melted, poisoning the punch. 
Hmmm… see what I mean by contrived? It’s bit like the denouement in those terrible police and detective dramas on afternoon TV, but in this case without the benefit of a gripping narrative. 
The essence of many of these lateral thinking problems is to lay a false trail in order to mislead the unwary solver. In this case it seems that Paul apparently has followed his own false trail. And although he assumes that the poison was in the punch he seems then to miss the more likely possibility that it was the guest who left early who was the murderer and put the poison in the bowl after he had had his drink. (Or maybe the murderer waited until after the early leaver had had his drink before he poisoned the punch to throw suspicion elsewhere – but wait …. how did the murderer know that he would be leaving early?). Once you start along this road there are many possible ‘solutions’. 
Of course, what has happened is that the problem has simply been poorly worded and should say something like "Everyone else at the party was poisoned by the punch". 
Perhaps I just don’t understand how some these ‘lateral’ puzzles should ‘work’ and it’s my fault because my mind is just too logical? (I do think some of the puzzles are good - numbers 16 and 20, for example).

Category: Puzzles-Jokes-Riddles; Replies: 78

Comments

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2
Hairy Houdini	Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 \| 03:14 PM Why? Markie, you Carol-ignorant twit. You may well ask: Why is a Jabberwock like a Frumious Bandersnitch? damn.. read a book
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 \| 03:32 PM Twas trillig and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe That's all I remember. It was an English assignment to memorize it one year (Gr 11, I think) so my spelling is probably off. Yeah, nothing says English language better than memorizing "Jabberwocky". :lol:
Wally	Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 \| 03:49 PM To beat a dead horse, the $30 motel room performs esentailly a invaled operation. You can either subtract from the total, i.e. 30-3-2=25 or you can add up to the total, i.e. 25+2+3=30. What the story does is mix operations, which is not valid, or even logical, 30-3+2=29... Here another fun one and much more difficult to spot. Here is a mathematical "proof" that 1=2. Can you spot the invalid operation? a = b a^2 = ab a^2 − b^2 = ab − b^2 (a − b)(a + b) = b(a − b) a + b = b b + b = b 2b = b 2 = 1
Nick in Merrie Olde Englande Member	Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 \| 03:59 PM if a=b then (a-b)=0, which you have divided by, dividing by zero is very very bad. and entirely meaningless, of course.
Sharruma	Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 \| 05:12 PM It's Brilig Twas Brillig, and the Slithy Toves Did Gyre and gimble in the Wabe All Mimsy were the Borogoves And the mome rath outgrabe Beware the Jabberwock my son! The jaws that bite the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub Bird and shun the frumious Bandersnatch He took his vorpal blade in hand Long time his manxome foe he sought So he rested by the Tumtum tree And stood a while in thought And as in uffish thought he stood The Jabberwock with eyes of flame came whiffling through the Tulgey wood And burbled as it came One two one two and through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead and with it's head He went Galumphing back And hast though slain the Jabberwock Come to my arms my beamish boy! O Frabjous day" Callooh Callay! He chortled in his joy Twas Brillig and the Slithy Toves Dis gyre and gimble in the wabe All mimsy were the borogroves and the Mome Raths Outgrabe Please excuse any spelling mistakes as I was doing it from memory unfortunately I can't prove that I recited this from memory - however, I don't actually own the book) Yes I was sad enough to memorize it when I was very young. (I loved the silly words back then)
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 \| 06:22 PM mome raths, frumulus, vopal, sword at first, maxome and a missed comma or two. At least judging from my own memory.
Lord Lucan	Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 \| 05:35 AM Here's a good one: A fruit stand manager has two piles of oranges from two different suppliers. One supplier wants $10 for thirty oranges, or three for a dollar. The other wants $15 for 30 oranges for, or two for a dollar. The manager decides to sell all sixty at five for two dollars. After selling twelve batches of five the manager only has $24, but he needed $25 dollars for the suppliers. Where is the other dollar?
Smerk in to mischief Member	Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 \| 05:40 AM Citizen, Sharruma's right with manxome. Missed a lot of punctuation, but we'll excuse that...
Smerk in to mischief Member	Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 \| 05:49 AM Lord Lucan, I think the manager should have sold his oranges for at least 2 for $1, matching the more expensive supplier, otherwise he'll never break even, let alone make a profit (as stated in the problem). That's just poor business and is likely to see him in bankcruptcy in no time... 😊 Apart from that, there's nothing wrong with the maths, it's just a poor decision by the manager to sell the oranges at 5 for $2...
andychrist	Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 \| 06:16 PM Lewis Carroll's belated answer: "Because they are both likely to produce a few notes." Of course, in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, the riddle never does get answered: "Have you guessed the riddle yet?" the Hatter said, turning to Alice again. "No, I give it up," Alice replied. "What's the answer?" "I haven't the slightest idea," said the Hatter. "Nor I," said the March Hare. Alice sighed wearily. "I think you might do something better with the time," she said, "than wasting it in asking riddles that have no answers."
Katherine	Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 \| 06:20 PM Here's a more in-depth exploration of the writing desk/raven conundrum if anyone cares to read it: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_266.html
Katherine	Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 \| 06:21 PM Hmmm...is that link working for you? It isn't for me. Try <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_266.html">this</a> instead.
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 \| 02:25 AM You know, Alex, this is one of the very few times I have actually wished for the power. That, and a really kickass roulette scheme. :lol:
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 \| 06:19 AM ... 😉
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 \| 08:37 AM Thanks, Maegan. 😉 But now, nobody has a clue about the roulette reference. Ha ha! :lol:
The Curator in San Diego Member	Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 \| 10:22 AM Thanks, Maegan. You beat me to deleting it.
head-scratcher	Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 \| 09:23 PM how about thinking of it this way - after the refund, the cashier has $25, the bellboy has $2 and the men have $3, which totals $30. The phrasing of the joke is misleading - though the men have 'paid $9' each, that INCLUDES the $2 taken by the bellboy. The $9 paid plus the $3 they actually got back totals $30. It's erroneous to add the $2 to the $27 rather than subtract it, as the joke (mis)states. Hope that's helpful! This one hung me up for quite a bit too!
roger	Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 \| 04:42 PM Actually, if a cop stops you for speeding, and he's got you on radar, he knowsyou were speeding. The speed of light is constant, regardless of how fast you're going. If you drive into a beam of light at the speed of light, you'll still see it hit you at c. And here's a 'lateral' question that just started bugging me: What time is it at the north pole?
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.