## Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

 Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account. As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends. Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games. If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top. If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen. Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse

# Neighbors

64 replies to this topic

### #11 colorclown26

colorclown26

• Members
• 254 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 10:11 PM

I got it in about 30 minutes. Pretty easy, though im in gifted classes.
• 0

### #12 dhjellen

dhjellen

Newbie

• Members
• 4 posts

Posted 04 July 2007 - 09:59 PM

This is solvable with the given information. It is true that you have to make assumptions in order to solve it, but this is a LOGIC PUZZLE, so by definition, you must make assumptions to reach the solution. If the point here were to pick apart the wording, then let us do that.
Based on the wording, one must assume more than the fact that the final beast must be a fish. You must assume that each person does not represent a racial mixture, that "nurture" means "only has this one animal in house", that "drinks" means "only drinks", that "a row of 5 houses" means there are no other houses between them (whether they be dog houses, tree houses or people houses), that "a different color" means each house can have only one color, that “first” means “leftmost”, that “center” means “middle of the row” and not center of the planet, that the language is modern English, that the author is not lying to you, that there is not a genetically engineered dog/cat mix, that it is not Tuesday when everyone moves one house to the left, that the horse did not drink all of the Dane’s tea and the Dane was forced to drink water (used to make tea) and kill his horse in rage, that while the brit was smoking his Pall Mall he did not burn his house down and now lives with his aunt who also happens to be the owner of the Sweed’s house who decided to rent the Sweed’s attic out to her homeless brit nephew (which would put the brit in the white house), etc... I can go on and on here. I hope my point is made, but if it is not, then let me be more clear. Deciding to pick apart the wording of a logic puzzle opens a Pandora’s Box that would logically result in the picking apart of every word of every sentence. If I choose to do this, then I could literally pick apart of every word of every logic puzzle I have ever come across and say I "solved" the puzzle by finding the “hidden” meaning behind the wording. It is true that there are puzzles out there that are designed to lead to outside-the-box thinking in order to find the hidden meaning behind the question stem, but this is clearly not one of them. It is clearly not one of them because there is a solution using the given information that can be reached using simple deductive reasoning. The goal here is to work the puzzle logically and deduce the solution. Allowing yourself to dismiss the solution of the puzzle because you think you found a backdoor through the English language defeats the purpose of the puzzle.

In reality, almost anyone could look at any question and avoid answering it by picking apart the wording. That is a pretty easy thing to do and does not take much time or skill. I can look at every puzzle in every section of this and similar sites and “solve” them all by picking apart the wording, but is that the purpose of these puzzles? Is that challenging? Is that why I am at this site? Of course not. Personally I find it more challenging to work the puzzles. I find that it defeats the purpose to avoid the effort in seeking the intended solution (but of course picking apart the wording does make you feel better if you can’t solve the puzzle the real way).

Hint: If you put together a little solution chart, you will find that the solution requires a lot of the same skills as Sudoku. I was able to get the solution in about 30 minutes... but I have always had a knack for Sudoku style puzzles.
• 0

### #13 pmilano1

pmilano1

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 06 July 2007 - 01:08 PM

The entire basis for logic puzzles of this nature is deduction. Assumptions are inherent with deducing a solution. You deduce (based on the question and the givens), and the assumed answer is correct in the puzzles context.
• 0

### #14 wellteased

wellteased

Newbie

• Members
• 2 posts

Posted 09 July 2007 - 04:11 AM

I would have to say first of all that I enjoyed the working out of the puzzle as a logical challenge. I did find my Sudoku practice helpful in narrowing multiple guesses to a single logical choice.

The wrinkle of assuming that the fish is the otherwise unidentified pet just ads an element of interest that I believe would only be resolved by asking the person who wrote the puzzle ...and even then it’s a bit arbitrary.

As far as the 2% I think that is a sad commentary on our education system(s) today. I do believe that 98% of people would not get the answer. A few of them might be able, but they’d rather go back to the TV or video games than exercise their brains with logic.

When I took logic in college (many years ago) the “professor” had trouble working through proofs much simpler than this problem. The most useful thing I learned in the class was the psychology aspect that I earned more points with the teacher by keeping my mouth shut or giving subtle hints instead of blurting out the answer and making her look dumb.

You guys that have worked out the answer are part of the 2%. Congratulations, you are much needed in a world increasingly ruled by emotion, advertising, and other preprogrammed responses. Just remember that many of our world’s problems are also subtly, often insidiously, confused by inaccurate underlying assumptions. Use your logic skills to recognize and analyze these assumptions (and their alternatives!) to make sure you are attacking the problems accurately.
• 0

### #15 dVs

dVs

Newbie

• Members
• 10 posts

Posted 09 July 2007 - 04:17 PM

4. The Green house is on the left of the White house.

i have to agree with JQST in that the wording on this hint is just too ambiguous to claim only one logical meaning. it seems that the answer hinges on these houses being directly next to each other, and yet there is no good reason to assume that they must be based on the given wording... leading to unnecessary confusion.

this led me to work the problem through once under the aforementioned assumption, and then attempt to do so a superfluous and uneventful second time to be certain that the assumption was requisite for a solution (which it appears to be).

how bout...

4. The Green house is directly on the left of the White house.
• 0

### #16 Smiffy13

Smiffy13

Newbie

• Members
• 10 posts

Posted 15 July 2007 - 10:25 AM

The german bloke. I saw this before, but it was a zebra he had.
• 0

### #17 and1gamer

and1gamer

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 19 July 2007 - 04:16 PM

The riddle says that the "green house is on the left of the white house", but it doesn't say its "next" to the the white house, so there is actually more than one way that the houses could have been arranged.
• 0

### #18 Kristos

Kristos

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 28 July 2007 - 10:53 PM

i cant believe it. i spent over an hour on this thing and was soo happy when it was completed all to find out that i only had one out of 5 right. i really thought i'd b in the 2%
• 0

### #19 anag89

anag89

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 14 August 2007 - 10:35 PM

This puzzle took me a great deal of time but I did figure it out.

You just have too take the time and look at every angle of each question.
• 0

### #20 fraza

fraza

Newbie

• Members
• 1 posts

Posted 22 August 2007 - 04:25 AM

It's ridiculous to say that we should figure out that because there was no fish mentioned in the information given, that we should say there is not enough information. If you're going to be so real-world to say that any may have a fish somewhere in the house or that there may a fish anywhere, then you should also be real-world enough to say that you will join the dots to figure out that the only animal that isn't mentioned elsewhere in the question must be the fish. I think everyone figures out that the fish isn't previously mentioned, and pauses on that, I know I did, but so much else isn't mentioned that you assume for the sake of the question, that's how it is in real life, why would you say that because there is no fish in the information that it might not be the other missing one? People who don't use these assumptions when solving problems are probably not going to have much success at solving many real-life problems, where you have to make many assumptions.

We could all just be stupid and say "No the Brits drink tea, I've seen them, and the Germans are famous for their beer!"
• 0

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users