Analytical Question Help!!!!!
-
A lot of money was stolen from a bank and driven away in a van. Three suspects A, B and C were brought to the police station for questioning and the following facts were established:
(a) No one other than A, B, C was involved in the robbery.
(b) A is innocent only if B is innocent.
(c) A does not know how to drive.
Can the guilt of any of the three be established? If so, which? -
Hmm, i very free... let me dig up my notes ..
A not certain
only B can be said to be guilty
statement (B) implies: C innocent -> B innocent/ guilty
C guilty -> B guilty ...
-
As above
-
thanks!!!!!!
-
wtf dont understand?Originally posted by gd4u:Hmm, i very free... let me dig up my notes ..
A not certain
only B can be said to be guilty
statement (B) implies: C innocent -> B innocent/ guilty
C guilty -> B guilty ...
is it C and not A? -
don't understand your line of logic. especially your statement B.Originally posted by gd4u:Hmm, i very free... let me dig up my notes ..
A not certain
only B can be said to be guilty
statement (B) implies: C innocent -> B innocent/ guilty
C guilty -> B guilty ... -
our first line already state NO ONe other than A,B, C are involved in robbery >>
n the question ask ?? guilty >> thus its
A < B < C -
sameOriginally posted by Icemoon:don't understand your line of logic. especially your statement B.
i was thinking, if C is innocent, B might be guilty or innocent, but if C is guilty, why B is guilty? -
My take .. hope this is not a qian bian question.Originally posted by Seifer28:A lot of money was stolen from a bank and driven away in a van. Three suspects A, B and C were brought to the police station for questioning and the following facts were established:
(a) No one other than A, B, C was involved in the robbery.
(b) A is innocent only if B is innocent.
(c) A does not know how to drive.
Can the guilt of any of the three be established? If so, which?
Premises:
1. A is innocent.
2. B innocent -> A innocent => A guilty -> B guilty
So let's draw a truth table. Let 1 be innocent and 0 be guilty.
A B C
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0
0 1 1
0 1 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
The rows in red will be true because there is no contradiction. According to premise 2, B -> A. The only time it is false is when B is 1 and A is 0. But this wrong scenario is not possible because we have established that A is innocent. C can be 1 or 0, as long as the row does not contain all 1 (because not all can be innocent).
Conclusion: no one's guilt can be established.
Make sense? -
His reasoning is fallacious because he is denying the antecedent.Originally posted by bladez87:same
i was thinking, if C is innocent, B might be guilty or innocent, but if C is guilty, why B is guilty? -
seems like a lack of info...
and well, ice's explanation is simple yet detailed..nice one
-
Statement (a) could established that all 3 of them are guilty right?Originally posted by Seifer28:A lot of money was stolen from a bank and driven away in a van. Three suspects A, B and C were brought to the police station for questioning and the following facts were established:
(a) No one other than A, B, C was involved in the robbery.
(b) A is innocent only if B is innocent.
(c) A does not know how to drive.
Can the guilt of any of the three be established? If so, which? -
huh .. why leh?Originally posted by dinky1409:Statement (a) could established that all 3 of them are guilty right?
Statement (a) only tells us the murderer(s) must necessarily come from the group. -
Cos every piece of worksheet ...
they will jumble up the statement squence to make it look new ...
sry, i missed out on tt ... -
no conclusion can be drawn.
1) the facts may not be true cos they were just ascertained by pple
2) more than 1 person may be involved
3) a person who does not know how to drive can still drive.
4) the robbery may have been conducted by aliens
etc -
A B C involved or suspected? If they are all involved - their guilt is already established.Originally posted by Seifer28:A lot of money was stolen from a bank and driven away in a van. Three suspects A, B and C were brought to the police station for questioning and the following facts were established:
(a) No one other than A, B, C was involved in the robbery.
(b) A is innocent only if B is innocent.
(c) A does not know how to drive.
Can the guilt of any of the three be established? If so, which?
If the robbers definitely come from A B or C , then :
Statement 1 : A =B = innocent (red herring? ) OR A=B = guilty
Statement 2 : A does not know how to drive and yet involved in the crime , B is definitely guilty as well.
Statement 3: C could be possibly innocent or guilty independently of A and B.
BUT it already stated that they ALL are involved in (a). So that discounts C's innocence. Guilt by association
The only thing you can establish is the getaway driver : B or C could be the possible getaway driver. -
Murderer? Nah look at your notes. Different context.Originally posted by Icemoon:huh .. why leh?
Statement (a) only tells us the murderer(s) must necessarily come from the group. -
sorry .. should be robbers hor.Originally posted by fymk:Murderer? Nah look at your notes. Different context. 
but no issue really .. 'cos this is a logic question.