Silver Creek Entertainment

Here is a logical puzzle , or "brain teaser".

A Logical Puzzle requires that the solver has a moment of "inspiration" or "insight", which is often part of solving any problem. The answer may seem to be simple; however, the ultimate solution may be so elusive, that it becomes impossible (or illogical!). Here is a classic "chestnut", which I recall from my childhood. Maybe you can come up with a logical answer for this!

JOHN - THE LAWYER

John Smith borrowed $10,000 from his father in law, Mike Jones - to help finance his legal education. John agreed to repay the loan as soon as he won his FIRST case. John finished law school, secured his law degree, passed the Bar exam, and then decided not to practice law immediately. The months went by, and John played Poker and made numerous trips to Florida and its beaches. His biggest problem was "so many women and so little time"! Lawyer stuff was nowhere on the radar screen! Finally, his father in law, Mike decided to sue John for the $10,000. Mike's logic was as follows: "If I win the suit, I will collect the money with a favorable judgement; if I lose the suit, then John will have won his first case, and must pay me according to the terms of original agreement. I can't lose either way". On the other hand, John thought that he was in the clear. He decided to defend himself. He said to himself "If I (John) win the suit, I will not have to pay; however, if I lose the suit, I will not have won my first case, and STILL will not have to pay, according to the terms of the original agreement."

How can these arguments be reconciled? Post your comments here accordingly.

Mike (father-in-law) wins this case for the reasons he laid out in his suit

and John loses because:

1) If he loses the case, by the judgement he would be ordered to pay the $10,000
2) If he wins, he doesn't have to pay by the suit but has to by his agreement since he is representing himself and wins.

HOWEVER, the case could be thrownout because technically a verbal agreement, if not witnessed, and contended that no such agreement was made in the first place would nullify the award... BUT may be construded as a WIN on the part of John since the claim was thrown out on his evidence that "No such agreement" was reached and therefore he would be obligated by the original agreement (of which he said there was not in a court of law and be subject for disbarrment for lying under oath if he did pay it).

AND THEN..... IF John was really the son-in-law, I think I would get it back through his daughters divorce or bribery..... as stated....... "The months went by, and John played Poker and made numerous trips to Florida and its beaches. His biggest problem was "so many women and so little time"!"

FURTHER MORE.... Look if you borrow with a promise.... make the promise good

JUST DUST

PS - From the Eyes of an OGRE..... he'd pay me back..... or ELSE!!!

I first saw this Puzzle when I was 11 years old. Yes, it does have a "Bertrand Russel" flavor! It has been presented in different publications, with slight "twists"! Yes the solution is "easy" if one gets the point; the point, however is likely to be elusive, and is intentionally made more (so) by the way the Puzzle is presented.

Some of the "solutions" are logical. Dust's thoughts are certainly interesting.

Because the concluding statement of the Puzzle is self-contradictory, there is no "real" solution. There are, as stated above some very good explanations.

Here is another example of the "self contradictory" statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puzzle -
"WHO SHAVES THE BARBER"?

In a certain community, the only barber shaves all of the men who do NOT shave themselves. That is, every man EITHER shaves himself, or is shaved by the barber - AND NO MAN DOES BOTH. The question, now, is:

WHO SHAVES THE BARBER?

One impulsive and logical answer is that the barber is a female! Is that a plausible answer? Or in the concluding statment a contradiction?

Oh well, back to card and board games!

It could also be said the Barber unlike the rest of the men in town, has been growing his beard since he was a pup...

OR

The Barber is NOT from town and commutes in from the next town...

JUST DUST

PS - Ya Da twist can be endless as in cards, what may seem like the perfect nil goes set as in another post in spades you produced Joe.

/me thinks the barber is doing chemo and has no hair to be shaved LOL

This question is unanswerable......even if the barber was a woman...however to your statement that every man shaves himself or is shaved by the barber AND NO MAN DOES BOTH.....if the barber shaved himself....he would also be shaved by the barber....thus doing both...

I like GS's answer LOL, good one there Linda.

JUST DUST

Maybe he's not the Barber in the town he comes form and therefore not considered Da barber that shaves himself in another town or uses a barber there and since he is not from town he would not be included in the blanket statement because he is not actually par of the community.

LOL

Don't ya just love an Ogre.....