does some former incidence has to the anything with it?
were they three frineds or in any other relation?
zee076
8 June 2008
Considering the facts provided it seems that Man B was hired by Man C to assasinate/murder Man A. Does that seem right ?
Shadow Hunter
4 September 2008
Man B was hired to kill man A. Man A had a tatoo on his arm, so his severed arm would be proof to man C that man A is dead
mallk10
14 August 2009
Man A. B and C were all deserted on a desert island together. They made an agreement that they would all cut off their arms to eat. Man B and C did it but they were rescued before Man A could. He promised them that he would cut off his arm when he got back home. Man B sees Man A with both of his arms. He calls man C to discuss this and they decide to kill Man A. Man B follows Man A and cuts off his arm and sends it to man C to let him know the job is done.
Mr JG Reeder
21 August 2010
There are quite a few variations on this scenario - I particularly like the one with the neatly severed arm delivered in a parcel - however, it doesn't involve murder, but accepting the consequences of an agreement. Perhaps a little more gentlemanly I think, however, it may depend on the audience...
cat
4 July 2011
Man C is the man from the south in the Roald Dahl story. Man B has lost a bet to him and run away without paying. The bet was for Man B's left arm (against a Cadillac). He knows that Man C is persistent and will track him down. Man A, on the other hand (!), just happens to be a perfect stranger who has the same size, build, and skin tone as Man B. So....
agarhi
11 July 2014
Man A said he was the best 'Lateral Thinking - Fanciful' problem solver and agreed if he can't solve one he be punished in whatever way B and C want. He couldn't solve the "The cut off arm" problem.
Add a Comment or Suggest an Answer
Rate this puzzle
No votes yet — be the first!Score: 0
❤️ 0
👍 0
🔧 0
👎 0
💀 0
Comments (7)
does some former incidence has to the anything with it?
were they three frineds or in any other relation?
Considering the facts provided it seems that Man B was hired by Man C to assasinate/murder Man A. Does that seem right ?
Man B was hired to kill man A. Man A had a tatoo on his arm, so his severed arm would be proof to man C that man A is dead
Man A. B and C were all deserted on a desert island together. They made an agreement that they would all cut off their arms to eat. Man B and C did it but they were rescued before Man A could. He promised them that he would cut off his arm when he got back home. Man B sees Man A with both of his arms. He calls man C to discuss this and they decide to kill Man A. Man B follows Man A and cuts off his arm and sends it to man C to let him know the job is done.
There are quite a few variations on this scenario - I particularly like the one with the neatly severed arm delivered in a parcel - however, it doesn't involve murder, but accepting the consequences of an agreement. Perhaps a little more gentlemanly I think, however, it may depend on the audience...
Man C is the man from the south in the Roald Dahl story. Man B has lost a bet to him and run away without paying. The bet was for Man B's left arm (against a Cadillac). He knows that Man C is persistent and will track him down. Man A, on the other hand (!), just happens to be a perfect stranger who has the same size, build, and skin tone as Man B. So....
Man A said he was the best 'Lateral Thinking - Fanciful' problem solver and agreed if he can't solve one he be punished in whatever way B and C want. He couldn't solve the "The cut off arm" problem.
Add a Comment or Suggest an Answer