Futility Closet - 200-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: May 14, 2018

  Here are five new lateral thinking puzzles -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Here are the sources for this week's puzzles. In a few places we've included links to further information -- these contain spoilers, so don't click until you've listened to the episode: Puzzle #1 was contributed by listener Mary McNally. Puzzle #2 is from listeners Tay Moss and John Russell. Puzzle #3 is from Paul Sloane and Des MacHale's 2014 book Remarkable Lateral Thinking Puzzles, plus this article. Puzzle #4 was suggested by an item in Kevin McAleer's 2014 book Dueling: The Cult of Honor in Fin-de-Siècle Germany. Puzzle #5 was devised by Sharon. Here are three corroborating links. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Google Play Music or via the RSS feed at http://feedpress.me/futilitycloset. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Hello, listeners, and welcome to our 200th episode. We're celebrating with another collection of lateral thinking puzzles. These are puzzles where one of us describes a strange-sounding situation, and the other has to work out what's going on, asking only yes or no questions. And thanks so much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles for us to try. We always need more. So please do keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. We'll be back next week with another dose of quirky history

and another lateral thinking puzzle. This puzzle comes from Mary McNally. A girl has an open wound. At first, the blood makes her nervous, then relieved. Why? Oh, God. A girl has an open wound. Is the wound on her? Yes. Would you say she's been injured? No. All right. All right. She's got a wound, but she hasn't been injured.

Correct. And I'm sorry, the rest of it was she's bleeding, and at first that makes her- At first the blood makes her nervous, then relieved. Okay. Where do you start with something like that? Is her identity important? Nope. Is her occupation? Nope.

Her age? Nope. Did this really happen? Let's say yes. Okay. Probably. A girl has a wound. At first, the blood makes her nervous.

Just because it would make anyone nervous to have a bleeding wound? Something along those lines. But, sorry, the last bit was... But then relieved. That she's alive? That she's bleeding? No. Oh, that's a good...

Oh my gosh, if I'm bleeding, I must still be alive. That's a good thought. My heart is beating. Yeah. Okay, so... I'm not a vampire. Do I need...

Yeah. You should write that down. Okay, do I need to know how she got the wound? I guess I do. Yeah. Or why she has it. Someone or something else caused the wound. She didn't inflict it on herself in some way.

I think you could say she inflicted it on herself in some way. It was like a snake bit her or something. That's correct. It is not like a snake bit her or something. Would you call it an accident? No. Really? She caused the wound herself? Yes. You'd say deliberately? Yes. To

release blood or poison or something? I mean, did she want to, would you say she wanted to bleed? Yes. I would say that. Would you say she wanted to bleed? Yes. I would say that. And that's why she was pleased because she set out to do this. I mean, she wanted this to happen. Well, she wanted this to happen, but that's not what's pleasing her,

but she did want this to happen. Is the setting important? Is she like an actress or something? No. You know, for Halloween or an actress or something? No. Is this for Halloween or some movie or something? No. Bleeding. Why would you want to make yourself bleed?

Do I need to know the location of the wound on her? I actually do know the location of the wound. I mean, is it important? Do I need to work that out? I think it usually, it would be in a particular place, and I don't know if that would help you or not. Okay, so I'll skip that for now. Do I need to know how she created the wound?

Yeah. I mean, was it like with a knife, with some tool? With a tool, yeah. I think the why is probably more important. I'm not sure what's going to help you the most here. Is this medical in any way? Yes. Is she a doctor? No. Is she trained in medicine or just doing? No. Okay. Someone else is. So there's someone else involved? No. Okay. But she's doing this for some medical reason yes it was she thought at least medically necessary to create this wound um that might be putting it a little strong

okay but for some medical reason yes do i need to know where this happened i was like she on a desert island or something no nothing like that nothing like that something much more mundane Something like that. Something much more mundane, actually, than it sounds. Creates a wound. Is there any other, you said there aren't other people involved? Right. Are there animals involved?

No. Does she have a medical condition I need to know about? Yes. That is important. Connected to bleeding? Not connected to bleeding. I mean, like hemophilia or something like that? No.

But that medical condition, she knows she has it. Yes. And she's come into some state of affairs where she thinks it will be necessary because of that condition to create a wound? I wouldn't put it like the way you've put it. The general idea is vaguely right, but the way you're phrasing it is not like the way you've put it. The general idea is vaguely right, but the way you're phrasing it is not really the way you'd say it. She has some medical condition. That is correct. I would say that. To start with. That part I agree with completely, yes. And at some point, she realizes that she thinks she ought to create a wound. I'll agree with that. To cut herself, can I just say that?

Cut isn't totally the right verb, but it's not completely wrong, but it's- Puncture, stab? Yeah. Yeah. Something like that. More like stabbing? She stabs herself? That might be a little strong, but yes. Is this a psychological condition? No. A medical condition? Yes. That induces her to... Well, it doesn't induce her, but it's her motivation, let's say. Okay, to puncture some part of her body? Yes.

I will tell you it's a fingertip. Diabetes? Yes, she has diabetes. So Mary says, the girl is diabetic like me. She has to keep track of her blood sugar using a glucose monitor. She pricks her finger, puts the blood on a test strip, and it comes back with a good glucose level. Yay! That makes a lot of sense when someone explains it to you.

This one was actually sent in independently by two different listeners, Tay Moss and John Russell. Okay. This is Tay's version. A man bought an expensive sailing yacht in New York, but he wanted to keep the boat in Florida, where he owned a vacation home. Instead of sailing it himself, he hired a crew of four young adults to sail the boat to Florida for him. All four were experienced sailors, and there was no foul weather during the trip. When the boat failed to arrive in a reasonable amount of time, the Coast Guard was dispatched and discovered the boat floating in the ocean. There was no sign of the crew, the sails were up and in good condition, and the dinghy and all emergency gear were stowed aboard and found to be in working order.

All navigation and communications equipment were operating correctly, and there was plenty of food and water aboard for a long passage. What had happened to the crew? Oh my. Okay. This actually happened, I'm assuming. We're not sure. Two people came up with it and you're not sure if it was reported happening, I guess. Tay says, I heard the story from another sailor. He claimed it was true, but it might be apocryphal. Huh.

Okay. Does it matter the time period? No. No. Okay. Does it matter that they were going from New York to Florida? Not particularly, no. Not particularly.

So this could have happened someplace else in the world? Yes. Okay. So it doesn't matter where exactly the boat was found? That's right. Does any part about where the boat was, like how far off of shore it was or where it was in the water, no part about location is important? That's right. Okay.

Does it matter that there were four people? No. Does it matter their ages? No. Is there anything about any of the four people that I should try to figure out? No. No. Okay. So four people disappeared off of a yacht. That's not giving you much to work with. No, it's okay. It sounds like a story that we would cover on the show. Four people disappeared off of a yacht. The yacht was in the water, in the ocean. Were they ever found? Let's say no.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. But somebody figured out what happened to them. Yes. Okay. And they might not have been found, but it was still able to be discerned what happened to them. Not necessarily.

Okay. All right. Well, people would have to know what happened to them because I'm going to guess what happened to them, right? No? I don't know. Well, I know what happened to them. You know what happened to them. But if you're saying just if someone just had to figure this out from the evidence that was available, they might not be able to. Okay. So there was some other piece of information that was needed to enable people to figure out what happened to the four people? I guess if they found the boat, there would be enough evidence.

I'm trying not to give you too many clues. There would be enough evidence on the boat itself? Yeah. Okay. So even if the four people were never seen or heard from again? Yeah. Okay. Was there some kind of criminal activity involved?

No. So you would say there was some kind of evidence on the boat. Visual evidence? Yes. Clues, at least. Hints on the boat? Yes. If, if the bodies were found and the boat was found, you'd have a picture that would tell you what had happened, I think.

But you're saying you could figure this out even if the bodies weren't found, because you're not sure if they were. Okay, wait a minute. All right, let's back up. Should I assume that the bodies were found? Let's say they were, just for simplicity. Okay, let's for simplicity. That would help. Okay, so the bodies were found. Can I guess what they died of? Yes. Did they drown? Yes. Okay, all four of them? Sure, yes. Okay, anything else about the manner of death that I need to figure out? No. Just that they drowned. Did they appear to have drowned while still on the boat? No. Okay. That would be dramatic. Yeah, well, it leads you in different directions. Okay,

so they all four ended up in the ocean. Yes. And then died. Yep. They were probably still alive, obviously, if they drowned in the ocean. Okay, they were alive, they left the boat. So I have to figure out why did they leave the boat? You said there was no evidence of damage to the boat. That's right. So it didn't look like there was a fire or something. Would you have said that they were scared off of the boat? No. Okay.

Would they have been maybe confused, like they were taking drugs and they thought they could walk on water or whatever? Okay. Were they maybe in scuba gear and the scuba gear all failed? No. Good guess. Okay. Were they maybe in like scuba gear and the scuba gear all failed? No. Good guess. Okay. Like somebody, they all had defective scuba gear. Okay. So you're saying there's no damage to the boat. There's no evidence of foul play. Right.

Hmm. Anything about the yacht that I need to know? Any specific characteristics or history or interesting traits about the yacht? No, not as a yacht. No. Not as a yacht. Something not as a yacht, though. No, nothing about its history. But something about, like, this wouldn't have happened on any boat. Is that correct? Or it could have happened on any boat. It could have. There was one. Let's say the boat was discovered with the bodies.

Nearby? Nearby. Okay. There would be something to notice about the boat that would help to explain what had happened. About the boat, but not the bodies. Right. Okay. Something to notice about the boat.

Something that was on the boat that would look, something that was on the boat as opposed to something that was missing from the boat. Something that was on the boat. opposed to something that was missing from the boat? Something that was on the boat? Yeah, that's tricky to answer. Or closer to something that was missing from the boat? Or both? Of those two, I'd have to say something that was on it, but I wouldn't go too far down that path. Okay.

So that's what I was asking before. Would the clues be visual? Yes. So if I had no senses other than sight, I would be able to discern the clues be visual yes so if if I had no senses other than sight I would be able to discern the clues I needed yes okay um was it a form of language or communication somebody wrote something down or there was information um okay hmm and you said the people probably weren't scared when they left the boat. No, you might work on... Would you have said they would jump in the water?

Like they deliberately left the boat? Yes. Okay. Not that the boat capsized and they were thrown off of it, but they all jumped into the water. Yes. Would you say that they were healthy at the time that they did this? Yes. And of clear mind?

Yes. Did they just go swimming? Yes. Okay. And I have to figure out why they all went swimming? No, you have to figure out why they drowned. I have to figure out why they drowned, not why they went swimming. Yeah, they may have gone swimming and just...

Then swam and then came back to the boat. Right, and they didn't do that. Was there something wrong with their... Would they have life preservers on? Let's say... Let's say no, but it wouldn't. Okay. So I can assume that they jumped in for a recreational swim.

Yeah. Does it matter why? No. No. They jumped in for a recreational swim. Was there something weather related going on that I need to know about? No. Something oceanic going on that I need to know about?

No. Did they get trapped under the boat somehow? or tangled up into each other they were in ropes or i don't know it's hand up swimming with ropes um okay would you say that something did they all know how to swim yes another good guess okay would you say that something would have dragged them down no um that something would have prevented them from swimming effectively something would have prevented them from finding the boat again no none of those um so for people that think they know how to swim jump in for a swim and all drown yes this i'll tell you the swim itself went fine it was getting back to the boat yes there was no way back to the boat. Yes.

There was no way back on the boat. There was no, like, ladder or rope or anything, whatever you use to climb back onto a boat. Yes. Basically, that's it. Oh. Tay writes, on a hot day when the boat was becalmed, the four decided to go swimming to cool down. They hadn't bothered to take the sails down. They also forgot to lower the swim ladder.

Like many boats, this one was impossible to get aboard from the water without the swim ladder. The four treaded water and perhaps were able to cling to the side, but once the wind began to fill in, the boat sailed away and the four eventually died of exposure to the deep and unmerciful sea. He adds that this might be apocryphal. He says, certainly it is plausible. There are many accounts of single-handed sailors falling off their boats and being unable to get aboard again. For this reason, some single-handed sailors will trail a long line behind their boats as a last resort fail-safe. These can be rigged to a motor shut-off switch if under power or to the rudder so that if pulled with sufficient force, it would cause the boat

to go in a tight circle. Either would effectively stop the boat and make it possible to get back aboard. Well, there you go. A safety lesson for everybody today, courtesy of Utility Closet, because that was really sad otherwise. Hey, courtesy of Futility Closet, because I was really sad otherwise. This puzzle comes from Paul Sloan and Des McHale's 2014 book, Remarkable Lateral Thinking Puzzles, with a minor modification by me. There were no terrorist attacks in the U.S. in the year after 9-11, but many more Americans died as a result of the terrorist actions. How?

All right, I have to test every assumption. By 9-11, you mean September 11, 2001. Yes. There were no terrorist attacks in the United States in 2002. Yes. But, say the last bit again. But many more Americans died as a result of the terrorist actions. Many more Americans died as a result of the terrorist actions. Did these, the Americans who did die as a result of the terrorist actions. Did these... The Americans who did die as a result of the terrorist actions,

did they die within the United States? Yes. Was it as a result of some measures that we took to protect ourselves after 9-11? No. As a result of the terrorist actions. as a result of the terrorist actions. Are you talking sort of broadly about death statistics across the country for the whole year,

or are you thinking of one particular event? Across the year. The people who died, did they die of similar causes? Yes. This is interesting. I don't think I know this. So some people, Americans died in 2002, who wouldn't, I guess, otherwise have died, probably. If 9-11

hadn't happened. And you're saying that's not because of measures that the Americans themselves put in place? Like that the government or something put in place? That's what I'm saying. It's not like that. So why else would you die? Result

of what the terrorists had done. Meaning specifically the 9-11 terrorists? Yes. Something they had done. Does this have to do with air safety or with air travel in general? It has something to do with air travel. In other words has something to do with air travel.

In other words, did the Americans who died, were they traveling by air? No. Somewhere in that system? No. Did they, did they, but you're saying, did they die by some cause connected to air travel? Would you say? I'd say vaguely. By some cause connected to air travel, would you say? I'd say vaguely.

Oh, is it that they changed their mode of travel? Yes. People who were going to fly chose not to because of 9-11. Right, because of concerns about hijackings, and statistically, driving is much more dangerous than flying, especially over long distances. So they all just decided to drive instead, and more of them died as a result. Yes, actually. Sloan and McHale had originally worded the puzzle to say in the 10 years after the attacks, and they seemed to just be presuming, like they didn't have any actual statistics. But I looked into this and found that there actually was evidence that there was an increase

in driving seen in the year following 9-11, especially for like long distance trips with plane travel being down. And it's estimated that there was about an extra 1,600 extra car accident fatalities in that time because of people driving instead of flying, just because driving is statistically actually much more dangerous than flying. That's a high number. Yeah. And you're right, you can attribute that pretty directly to 9-11. Exactly. If 9-11 hadn't happened, many of these people would have chosen to fly.

In 1886, the German Reichstag introduced a bill to stop a particularly pernicious form of dueling in which the winners could not be charged with murder. Why not? The winners could not be charged with murder. Why not? The winners could not be charged with murder. The winners of the duel. Right. Does it matter what weapons they were using? No. Hmm.

Does this have anything to do with the specific location that the duels were taking place? No. Does this have anything to do with the specific location that the duels were taking place? No. But it doesn't matter what the weapons were. Can we presume that the losers were dying? Yes. So the losers were dying, but the winners could not be... Oh, is it because there were multiple people involved?

So you wouldn't know who had actually killed the other person? Oh, that's interesting. I hadn't even thought about that. No, that's not it. If you have like four people on each side, and then you don't know who actually thrust the sword into whom or whatever, shot the bullet. Oh, shoot. See, I think I solve it sometimes. It would be hard to organize as a thing.

No, that's not it. Okay. The winners could not be charged with murder. Does that have something to do with some peculiarity of the law? No. Is that because you wouldn't be able to determine who the murderer was? No. Is that because the people who died wouldn't die right away?

They would die after a period of time. No, that's not it. These are all good guesses um i'm trying to think why you couldn't why you couldn't uh charge the winner with murder i mean there were other forms of dueling where you could charge the winner with murder yes okay so there was one form of dueling in particular where for some reason you couldn't charge the winner with murder. That's right. Does that have something to do with the characteristics of either of the people that were doing the dueling? No. Ah, shoot. I thought maybe they were like underage and you can't charge 10-year-olds with murder. Coming up with such great ideas, but they're all wrong.

Okay, why can't you charge someone with murder? You can't charge someone with murder if they haven't murdered somebody, like somebody didn't die. Is it because you don't know whether the person died or not? No, that's not it. Or you don't know what the cause of death was? That's not it either. Okay, I'm trying to think of what would prevent you from charging someone with murder.

And you do know who the perpetrator of the murder was. Yes. Yes, that is known. Yes. And it doesn't have anything to do with peculiarities of the laws. Like people were going to particular jurisdictions or coming from other places where you couldn't charge them because they were not citizens or whatever. No, nothing like that. Nothing like that. So you know who the murderer was, you know who the victim was, you know that the victim did die.

Had they signed something first saying, I agreed to be killed possibly, and so it's a suicide and not a murder if I am killed? No. Or in some way entered into some kind of an agreement or pact that basically said that this should be counted as a suicide, not a murder. Not quite. No. Yes, I'll say yes to that. So that the person who died, it would be considered suicide and not a murder? Yes. Yes. So what was there about the setup that was making it be considered a suicide rather than a murder? Yes. That's a good question um uh that it was somebody who wanted to die and it's not just that they signed a pact or they signed an agreement or they verified it to

witnesses or but it's more like something about the specific setup than any of those other types of things no they they made an agreement they made an agreement that if they should die it was be suicide that it was a suicide that they wanted it that's very close that's very close um okay the duelers did something before they dueled yes that was making that that was the issue is what what was it that they did before they, they wrote their wills. No, no. They wrote suicide notes. You're very close to it.

Okay, so both participants presumably in the duel, because they don't know who's going to win, right? Is that the case? You would say both participants did something or no? They agreed on terms, I guess you something or no they agreed on terms i guess you'd say agreed on terms they agreed on what they were going to do does does oh that if if they they would agree on that whoever they considered to be the winner the other person would actually kill themselves yes that's actually's actually it. Oh, my. So what did they do? They just agreed on their honor that whoever,

they drew lots, and whoever lost agreed that he would kill himself. Oh, so they weren't actually even dueling with weapons. They were just like doing it in the name of chance. No, so you still, like if two young men had a disagreement over a woman or something, they would just agree that one of them would kill himself. In his 2014 book on dueling, Kevin McAleer writes, In the 1880s, a strange hybrid of duel came into vogue in certain circles in Germany.

It was in essence part suicide pact and part Russian roulette, in which two men would agree to let fate harmonize their discord by drawing lots, the loser then quietly offing himself within a specified period of time. That's really interesting. This new form of duel became so ungovernable that by 1886, a bill was introduced into the Reichstag to outlaw it. Wow. That's really, people can be very creative sometimes with what they come up with. Rick Rosner, who supposedly has the second highest IQ in the world, was a contestant on the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Although he had studied for almost a year before going on the show, he not only didn't

do very well, winning only $1,000, but he actually ended up losing tens of thousands of dollars as a result of his appearance on the show. Why? How much did he lose? Tens of thousands? Tens of thousands of dollars, yes. Does it have to do with some legal agreement that he broke? No.

I'm just guessing. No. I'm just guessing. No. Okay. Would you say that he lost the money under the rules of the game he was playing? No. It wasn't a penalty within the game. Correct. It was something else.

Right. Does this have to do with the fact that he was on television? I mean, that he was recognized somehow? No. When he wouldn't have been otherwise? No. Okay, so he was on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Right.

Okay, so everything leading up to that, it sounds like I don't need to know the fact that he won $1,000. Right. We're just talking about the fact that due to the fact that he was on the show, he lost tens of thousands of dollars. Yes. But that's not due to the fact that he was recognized on television. That's correct. Does that have to do with like the opportunity cost? Like he was,

because he was on the show, he wasn't doing something else. No. It was more direct than that. Tens of thousand dollars. Okay. Would you say this would have happened if he'd appeared instead on another show instead of who wants to be a millionaire?

Can't say. Don't know. Possibly yes. Possibly. Do we need to know more about his actual behavior on another show instead of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Can't say. Don't know. Possibly, yes? Possibly. Do we need to know more about his actual behavior on the show, anything he did or said? No. No? Just the fact that he appeared on it?

He appeared on it. He didn't do very well, winning only $1,000, and then ended up losing tens of thousands of dollars. After that? Yes. Would the outcome have been any different if he'd won a lot of money on the show? Yes. Had he bet on his performance?

No. That's a good thought. Okay. So he gets on the show. Yes. He does relatively badly. Yes. And then as a result.

Yes. Loses money. Do I need to know who he loses the money to? Maybe. I'm not sure. Was it a wager who he loses the money to? Maybe. I don't, I'm not sure. Was it a wager? No. Of any kind?

No. Okay. Does this involve debt? Did he need the money? No. Okay, so he won $1,000. Yes. And would you say as a consequence,

lost tens of thousands? I guess I already asked you that. Not exactly, but. Okay. Are there other people involved that I need to know about? Not specific people. Is there any kind of crime involved? No.

Do we need to know more about subsequent events other than the fact that he lost this money? Yes. Okay. So he appears on the show. He loses mean he gets a thousand bucks and then um was he divorced or something as a result of this i don't know why that would happen his wife's like i'm leaving you if you can't win a game show but something like that the fact that he lost tens of thousand dollars did he did he give that money to a specific person? No. Well, I'm not sure.

I take that back. Maybe he did. I'm not sure. Did he buy something with it? Like, was he forced somehow to spend tens of thousands of dollars? He wasn't forced to. He chose to? He did choose to. Would you say he invested that in some no enterprise no so he spent tens of thousands

of dollars of his word spent yeah that he would use that word um does that have something to do with his reputation not sure what you mean well i don't know if if he was fired up to be this extremely intelligent person and did in relatively poorly on the show, he might have to rehabilitate his reputation or marketing or something like that. Not that. Because it sounds like that. I think the fact that he thought he should have done much better and that he thought he's the second highest IQ in the world and he studied for a year and then he only won

$1,000. That's all germane and it's not education he didn't decide that he needed to learn a lot more that's correct um well what would you spend so he didn't lose the money he spent the money he spent the money uh in a non-recoverable kind of way so in in a way it's losing it. On one thing, would you say? I wouldn't call it a thing. An experience? No.

A service? Yes. He spent tens of thousands of dollars on a service that he wouldn't have otherwise. You would call it possibly a service, but I don't want to mislead you. Maybe think about the bigger picture. About what might you do if you thought you were the you know one of the smartest people in the world and you do very badly on a game show and don't think you should have done that badly on the game show well what you do next if it's

not trying to redress the problem then maybe he i don't know there's a vice of some kind was no no no no what do you mean by trying to redress the problem well if he thought that his performance reflected somehow on him and he was trying to that was not it that's not it but the redress part what else might you do did it have to do with other people's impressions or opinions of him no as a result of this no because i can see that too but he did feel like he shouldn't have done this badly on the show. Was he trying to demonstrate that he ought to have done better in some way? Not exactly. Was he trying to show his intelligence in some expensive way?

No. And you say he might have done this even if he'd appeared on another show than this. If he'd appeared on another show and done badly, he might have chosen the subsequent course of action. Well, all I keep coming back to is some kind of marketing or publicity or some public campaign. No, he didn't feel he should have done this badly on the show. Did he sue them? Yes, that's exactly what he did. He sued the show for what he believed was a bad question and ended up losing both the original case and the appeal, costing him, he said,

tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and thousands of hours of research into more than 100,000 other questions from the show when he went looking for other bad questions. The question he missed was what capital city is located at the highest altitude above sea level and the choices he was given were Mexico City,

Quito, Bogota, and Kathmandu, but Rosner says that La Paz, Bolivia, is generally recognized as the world's highest capital city, and thus the question was flawed. The ABC television station said that the question asked Rosner to pick from the four choices offered, and apparently the court judges agreed with ABC. Wow.

Interestingly, Rosner had also appeared on the game show Jeopardy, where he not only lost the game, but he lost the extra pair of pants he'd brought with him as they were mistakenly taken by another contestant. So not a very successful career in game shows. We can always use more lateral thinking puzzles. So if you have any you would like us to try, please send them to us at podcast at futilitycloset.com.