Puzzle of the day :ANSWER POSTED

brianwelsch

Quartz... wrote:

Which one should you take if you're not actually a schmuck deep down?

Considering both make great money, I'd take the one that's more interesting to me.

BW

Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peart

Raj Lal

nobody yet there is no if condition in the answer

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

David Crow

Quartz... wrote:

...the Mensa guys which is the 98th percentile of the current population...

This could be interpreted in (two) different ways.

"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15

"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb

Raj Lal

It is my opinion that the failure to see the obvious is weighted heavily by those making honest mistakes, often through ignorance, with only a few people intentionally making misleading assertions. However, it is also my opinion that many of those making honest mistakes know better. But they are lazy. don't ask me to explain the hint

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

Raj Lal

you won't ask if you agree with the first assumption

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

Raj Lal

brianwelsch wrote:

I'd take the one that's more interesting to me.

and that is ?

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

David Crow

I fail to see your correlation. I was simply making the observation that folks belonging to Mensa are not "the 98th percentile of the current population." Worded correctly, members must score in the 98th percentile on standardized IQ tests. There's a big difference in what you wrote vs. what you meant.

"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15

"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb

Raj Lal

DavidCrow wrote:

I fail to see your correlation

Was kidding , there is none current population, my bad , i meant the population giving the mensa test

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

JBurkey

How about neither of them? Being so "brilliant", I can get a higher paying job, if that's what's really important. However, if I'm not "actuall a shmuck deep down", then maybe I don't care about the money, so long as I'm doing well enough and living in a place that I like. Perhaps I'll be a university professor doing research for far less than 180,000.

Todd Smith

Take them both. Did I just write that? :doh: Take both of them.

Todd Smith

Member 96

Are you making a statement of some kind here? I fail to see the "puzzle" aspect of this.

Raj Lal

Its a very simple objective question , and in a way its a real puzzle because, a lot of companies that trick you into a scam like that. you need to think hard before choosing your answer

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

Member 96

Well I must be missing something here; clearly the first choice pays the most money over the long term, however the second choice pays the most money over the first 12 month period which could be a factor if you do not remain employed for the first full year. No puzzle there at all that I can see.

Wags

I'm sure it's meant to be a serious puzzle but it still doesn't make sense to me. Faulty reasoning? :confused: http://www.cut-the-knot.org/arithmetic/Kline-Loyd.shtml[^] Perhaps Quartz could explain in his own words.:suss:

Maksym Petrenko

Huh, I think I see the difference. For some reason they assume that every six month your six-month salary will be raised by 50, which sums up to 100 rise/year instead of just 50/year as you might think if you rise your annual salary by 50 as it should be from the text :~

Raj Lal

Will go for the SECOND JOB for the obvious fact that it pays more at any point of time may it be one year, two year or even more let's see Now it's clear that if one worked for up to six months then both would pay the same – ie, 90,000 in all. But if one worked for six to 12 months then the second job would pay more because from the seventh month it would pay that much extra, adding up to 95,000 for the next six months. But what about subsequently? FOR FIRST JOB (20,000 inc, annualy) First year : would pay 90,000 + 90,000 = 180,000; Second Year : it will pay 100,000 + 100,000 = 200,000; Third year : 110,000 + 110,000 = 220,000. Total = 600,000. Whereas for the SECOND JOB (5000 inc, 6 monthly) First year: It would pay 90,000 + 95,000 = 185,000; Second year: 100,000 + 105,000 = 205,000; Third year: 110,000 + 115,000 = 225,000. Total = 615,000 So what will you go for again ? Beware a lot of companies DO trick people into a scam like that. have a good day !

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

Raj Lal

posted the answer check if that satisfies you

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

Raj Lal

check the answer here[^]

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

Raj Lal

have posted the solution here[^] see for yourself

Omit Needless Words - Strunk, William, Jr.

Nish Nishant

First Job : 3 years : 600, 000 - I agree. Second job, your calculations don't seem to be right.

Quartz... wrote:

First year: It would pay 90,000 + 95,000 = 185,000; Second year: 100,000 + 105,000 = 205,000; Third year: 110,000 + 115,000 = 225,000. Total = 615,000

Here's why. The 6 months hike of 5,000 is on the annual salary. So initially his base pay was 180K (90K for 6 months). After 6 months it becomes 185K (92.5K for the next 6 months). Every 6 months, his 6-monthly pay gets increased by 2,500. So here goes :- First year 90 + 92.5 = 182.5K Second year 95 + 97.5 = 192.5K Third Year 100 + 102.5 = 202.5K Total at the end of 3 years :- 575 K So I'd definitely go for Job # 1.

Regards, Nish

Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)