It got lost in your cognitive blind spot
The shop receives $30 for the initial purchase and subtracts $5 for the assistant to return to the travelers, clearly by tracking them down via the watch's built-in GPS signal or something
$30 minus $5 equals $25. $3 is given to the travelers, $2 is kept by the assistant and $25 is kept by the shop for the original purchase. Everything adds up
So basically you switch out subtraction and addition. You add the $2 the assistant pilfered to make the total $29, where you should have subtracted $2 to make the total amount paid $25.
Classic red herring. All is well with the world, people
I seriously couldnt understand most of that
Turn on the first switch and leave it on for a couple minutes. Switch it off and turn the second switch on. Enter the room and check which of the two unlit bulbs are warm
Switch one goes to the warm unlit bulb, switch two to the lit bulb and switch three to the cold unlit bulb
I assume they dont stay in the dark room, because then I dont think there is a solution unless the blind dude can hear the colour of fabrics
Lets call them Adam (seeing), Bob (seeing) and Zatoichi (blind samurai, listener of fabrics). If we assume the two non-blind people can see what hats the others are wearing, we can start ruling things out
Adam speaks first and says he doesnt know:
Ergo, we can rule out that Bob and Zatoichi listener of fabrics arent both wearing white hats because then Adam could deduce that he is wearing a black hat. So they must either both be wearing black hats or one white, one black
Bob speaks after Adam that he also doesnt know:
If Zatoichi listener of fabrics was wearing a white hat, Bob would know his own hat colour because they cant both be wearing white hats. Because then Adam would know his hat colour
Ergo, Zatoichi listener of fabrics doesnt need to hear the threads sing to tell him that he has to have a black hat on because of deduction
"Would the other guard tell me this door leads to death?"
Option one, the door does lead to death:
The honest guard would say "no!" because the other guard is a liar. The liar would say "no!" because the truthteller would say "yes!"
Option two, the door doesnt lead to death:
The honest guard will say "yes!" because, like before, the other dude is a lying bastard. The lying guard will also say "yes!" because the truthteller would say "no!"
Ergo, if the answer is no, the door leads to death. If the answer is yes, the door is safe
Meh. I honestly think it's boring and bruteforcable. Standard choice by elimination
I'll leave this for the masses