|Posted by dswilborn||02/06/10|
|This one I worked once in order of clues, then noticed a mistake. So I worked from the bottom up and got it. Nicely done! :D|
|Posted by nidhikaila||02/06/10|
|i thoroughly loved this puzzle! Thank you!|
|Posted by braindeadmommia||02/06/10|
|Brilliant! I loved that it was challenging with the double negatives. Thanks.|
|Posted by caberet||02/06/10|
| :D Thank you for all the great comments, everyone! :D|
|Posted by mrsfessler||02/07/10|
|great puzzle! Challenging! I loved it!|
|Posted by RaggedyRoses||02/16/10|
|It is stated in the story line that "Ms. Langston and four other executives .... Each executive is an expert .... determine the first and last name of each executive ...."
So, then ... I can only assume that all five women are executives, so how can the profit margin specialist not be "among the three executives" when acutally all five women are supposed to be executives?|
|Posted by caberet||03/22/10|
|Raggedy - To answer your question: I can only assume that all five women are executives, so how can the profit margin specialist not be "among the three executives" when acutally all five women are supposed to be executives?
It means that the profit margin specialist is a 4th person, not one of the 3 previously mentioned in that clue. I'm sorry if that wasn't clearer.|
|Posted by mom2boys||04/09/10|
|Posted by Gizzer||08/03/10|
|I was not able to determine a unique solution to this. I have 3 of the women identified properly, and I know the remaining 2 are Meg Russo and Patricia Mulcahy, who are the ieTrade CFO, who is a leadership guru, and the Lenamar Tech chairperson, who is a profit margin specialist. However, I cannot find anything that determines which name goes with which description. Am I missing something, or is there a clue missing?|
|Posted by chriscat||10/20/10|
|Gizzer, I have the same issue. The only reason I can think of to conclude that the answer is as given
is that the other alternative associates Ms. Russo with Lenamar Tech., which is half of the "false" alternative of clue #3.
Logically speaking, though, "A and B" is false unless both "A" and "B" are true, so that shouldn't rule out Ms. Russo being with
Lenamar, since Ms. Barnes is not the inventor.|
|Posted by caberet||10/20/10|
|To answer Gizzer and chriscat:
We know that Ms. Russo cannot be the CFO from Clue 1.
After going through all the clues, we know that the ieTrade Chairperson with excellent Leadership skills can only be surnamed Mulcahy, Russo or Whitman. We know that the Lenamar Tech Chairperson who is a Profit margin Specialist can ony be surnamed Mulcahy or Whitman. But we were previously told that Ms. Whitman was not with Lenamar, so Ms. Mulcahy must be the Lenamar Chair.
I hope this answers your questions. Please let me know if I didn't explain it well enough.|
|Posted by chriscat||10/20/10|
|I don't understand why the Lenamar Tech Chairperson who is a Profit margin Specialist cannot be Ms. Russo.
If you are deriving this from Clue #3, this is not a correct interpretation of the "and" statement in the false alternative, as Ms.
Barnes is not the inventor. When I read through your solution and a solution where in Meg Russo and Patricia Mulcahy
have reversed attributes, both work for me. What am I missing?
(And, btw, I think in your explanation above you meant "We know that Ms. Russo cannot be
the CEO from Clue 1." She is in fact the CFO. Anyway, no problem with that point.)|
|Posted by Kronos||12/29/10|
|I found that the clues are complicated to understand. many variables and can get confusing if not given complete attention. Deserves the high difficulty rating that I and many others have given it.|
|Posted by mom_rox||12/31/10|
|Hi caberet. I too am confused by the wording.
from your hint: "The inventor must be the chairperson or the commissioner." I AGREE
"Clue 3 tells us that the inventor cannot be either Ms. Russo or Ms. Barnes." I DISAGREE
One possibility (trial and error) is that Ms. Russo can be the Inventor and that Ms. Barnes can be with Lenamar Tech. Clue 3 does not tell you this fact - you have to work through this possibility to find out that this combination will not work. Therefore, the surnames of the Inventor and Lenamar Tech. executives are not exclusively Russo and Barnes, but the wording leaves open the possibility that one of their surnames could be either Russo or Barnes. The clue does not automatically eliminate both surnames for both women.
At this point, you can logically deduce the correct solution without any more "trial and error" scenarios, but it takes some time to work through this.
Great puzzle, but I think the wording in Clue 3 is too ambiguous.|
|Posted by wiser_now||01/15/11|
|Again, a challenging and well written puzzle!|
|Posted by dreamlvr1432||06/14/11|
|I agree that clue 3 needs to be edited. Otherwise an excellent puzzle. :D|
|Posted by caberet||06/14/11|
|Some people seem to have difficulties understanding clue 3. It's essential to determine whether the 3 options fit into one pair or the other. Other clues show us that the inventor MUST be the chairperson or the commissioner, thereby excluding either Ms. Russo or Ms. Barnes as an option, leaving only the other pair as a possibility. I hope this clears things up.
I do thank you for your comments.|
|Posted by roseyb75||12/27/11|
|Clue Three got me confused. :-?|
|Posted by Obilio||11/27/12|
|Hww, a hard one to be sure, but fun. :) Thank you, and please make more! The challenge is what makes puzzles fun in the first place . One tiny suggestion if I may, ( I couldn't write one of these puzzles if I had a gun to my head, but I've solved quite a few). In the clue that says, " not one of 'the' three executives..." I would have changed 'the' to 'these', thus making it clear that you were speaking of a fourth person. I had trouble with that too. Thanks again, though, you are clearly very good at this!|
|Posted by spikethru4||02/14/13|
|Posted by extremeblueness||07/13/13|
|This one is quite literally impossible. I got Whitman as both CEO and Chairperson, which is obviously impossible. I think the problem arises when you say stuff like
"Sabancci Ltd. (who is neither Patricia, who is not the commissioner, nor Rene.)"
What this is saying is that Sabancci Ltd. does not have Patricia, and Patricia is neither commissioner nor Rene, as Patricia is closest to the who connected to commissioner, and Rene is grouped in w/ commissioner in the things that Patricia is not (note that it doesn't say that commissioner is Rene).
Please fix this, as I don't know what you really mean all the times you say these. Such statements are made in 5, 6, and 7.|
|Posted by caberet||07/14/13|
|Thank you for your responses everyone. I'm still learning how to express myself precisely and accurately.
Folllowing are my explanations for the clues mentioned as being difficult to understand:
# 7 - I meant that the Sabancci exec is neither Patricia nor Rene. Patricia is also not the comissioner.
#5 - Meg is not the stock options specialist or inventor. Another person, (not Meg) surnamed Mulcahy, is not Arlice. Arlice is not the chairperson. Neither Meg nor Ms Mulcahy is with either Licent or Surat. And Rene is not with Surat.
#6 - Ms. Russo is not the CEO. Rene is not the profit margin specialist or the chairperson. Ann is not with Lenamar Tech. The CEO and the profit margin specialist are Ms Whitman and with Lenamar Tech, in some order.
I apologize for any confusion. Please know that I meant no harm. I'm just a rank amateur just trying to make some fun puzzles.|
|Posted by Mellie627||10/18/14|
|I finally go it. :D It was a lot of fun and REALLY hard. I cannot believe this is your first puzzle. Good job.
|Posted by saska||03/03/17|
|Thanks for your puzzle. Really great work!
I managed to solve it with glpsol (a free linear and mixed integer programming solver, available for most platforms).
Just in case anyone is interested to play with it, I have uploaded the model file to pastebin ( http://pastebin.com/UmHmLpFe ).
|Posted by grace317||03/28/17|
|I found this very tough to go through, the way it is worded is very confusing! e.g. specialist sounds like it's a job so I look at the job positions column every time :(|