Skip to main content
Puzzling

Return to Answer

Added spoiler tags
Source Link
edit approved Jun 11, 2015 at 6:05
LinkBerest - SO sold our work
edit approved Jun 11, 2015 at 6:05
LinkBerest - SO sold our work
  • 728
  • 5
  • 13

G. Other He didn't lose anything.

The riddle never specifies that he refunded shop A his 1000rs, and given the situation there is no reason for him to have done so. Given the lack of supervision by shopkeeper B on the 1000rs bill while in the possession of shopkeeper A, there is nothing that would suggest the bill is the same one the lady bought goods with.

As the goods sold were at no profit, the total change in revenue is 0.

G. Other
He didn't lose anything.

The riddle never specifies that he refunded shop A his 1000rs, and given the situation there is no reason for him to have done so. Given the lack of supervision by shopkeeper B on the 1000rs bill while in the possession of shopkeeper A, there is nothing that would suggest the bill is the same one the lady bought goods with.

As the goods sold were at no profit, the total change in revenue is 0.

G. Other He didn't lose anything.

The riddle never specifies that he refunded shop A his 1000rs, and given the situation there is no reason for him to have done so. Given the lack of supervision by shopkeeper B on the 1000rs bill while in the possession of shopkeeper A, there is nothing that would suggest the bill is the same one the lady bought goods with.

As the goods sold were at no profit, the total change in revenue is 0.

G. Other
He didn't lose anything.

The riddle never specifies that he refunded shop A his 1000rs, and given the situation there is no reason for him to have done so. Given the lack of supervision by shopkeeper B on the 1000rs bill while in the possession of shopkeeper A, there is nothing that would suggest the bill is the same one the lady bought goods with.

As the goods sold were at no profit, the total change in revenue is 0.

For whatever reason, shopkeeper B is the one who made the transaction, and shopkeeper A (implied but never actualy identified) is the one who made change.
Source Link
edit approved Jun 11, 2015 at 2:40
jamesdlin
edit approved Jun 11, 2015 at 2:40
jamesdlin
  • 983
  • 1
  • 6
  • 15

G. Other He didn't lose anything.

The riddle never specifies that he refunded shop BA his 1000rs, and given the situation there is no reason for him to have done so. Given the lack of supervision by shopkeeper AB on the 1000rs bill while in the possession of shopkeeper BA, there is nothing that would suggest the bill is the same one the lady bought goods with.

As the goods sold were at no profit, the total change in revenue is 0.

G. Other He didn't lose anything.

The riddle never specifies that he refunded shop B his 1000rs, and given the situation there is no reason for him to have done so. Given the lack of supervision by shopkeeper A on the 1000rs bill while in the possession of shopkeeper B, there is nothing that would suggest the bill is the same one the lady bought goods with.

As the goods sold were at no profit, the total change in revenue is 0.

G. Other He didn't lose anything.

The riddle never specifies that he refunded shop A his 1000rs, and given the situation there is no reason for him to have done so. Given the lack of supervision by shopkeeper B on the 1000rs bill while in the possession of shopkeeper A, there is nothing that would suggest the bill is the same one the lady bought goods with.

As the goods sold were at no profit, the total change in revenue is 0.

Source Link
DiscOH
DiscOH
  • 436
  • 2
  • 9

G. Other He didn't lose anything.

The riddle never specifies that he refunded shop B his 1000rs, and given the situation there is no reason for him to have done so. Given the lack of supervision by shopkeeper A on the 1000rs bill while in the possession of shopkeeper B, there is nothing that would suggest the bill is the same one the lady bought goods with.

As the goods sold were at no profit, the total change in revenue is 0.