Who Killed Sharky in the Underworld Mystery?

  • Thread starter RyozKidz
  • Start date
In summary, Case 1 is ruled out because Socko is a liar, Case 2 is ruled out because Fats is telling the truth and Muscle is lying, Case 3 is ruled out because it's contradictory for all 3 men to be lying, and Case 4 is ruled out because it's Muscle who killed Sharky.
  • #1
RyozKidz
26
0
Sharky , a leader of the underworld , was killed by one of his own band of four henchmen . Detective Sharp interviewed the men and determined that all were lying except for one. He deduced who killed Shark on the basis of the following statements :

a) Socko: Lefty Killed Sharky
b) Fats: Muscles didnt kill Sharky
c) Lefty: Muscles was shooting craps with Socko when Sharky was knocked off
d) Muscles: Lefty didnt kill Sharky

who did kill Sharky?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Go through each of the four statements, assuming that that one is correct and the others incorrect. Here's #1:
By a, Lefty Killed Sharky. By b, Muscles killed Sharky; contradiction.

So a is lying.
 
  • #3
i do it like this..
first i negation all of the statements
second Then i check it 1 by 1 see whether got contradiction a not(like what u had done)
third if there r a contradiction occurs , i will ignore it and go for the next.
last i found that it was Muscle who did kill Sharky

Is it like this?? My logic sense is quite poor..~ hehe
 
  • #4
The question appears to be inconsistent.
1/ One of (a) or (d) must be true (because one statement is the complement of other)
2/ Similarly, one of (b) and (c) must be true.
Therefore, we find two true statement maker {one from (a) or (d) and the other from (b) or (c)}.
Thus the condition of the question that 'only one is stating the truth' does not hold good.
 
  • #5
RyozKidz said:
Sharky , a leader of the underworld , was killed by one of his own band of four henchmen . Detective Sharp interviewed the men and determined that all were lying except for one. He deduced who killed Shark on the basis of the following statements :

a) Socko: Lefty Killed Sharky
b) Fats: Muscles didnt kill Sharky
c) Lefty: Muscles was shooting craps with Socko when Sharky was knocked off
d) Muscles: Lefty didnt kill Sharky

who did kill Sharky?

I think the question is fine, we have 4 cases to consider.

CASE 1: Socko is the one telling the truth. Then Lefty killed Sharky is the truth. But if Socko is the only one telling the truth, then the others must be lying. So Fats (who is lying) says that muscles didn't kill Sharky, ...thus Muscles DID kill Sharky. Two different people killed Sharky? Not possible...thus case 1 is ruled out.

CASE 2: Fats is the one telling the truth. So Socko, Lefty and Muscles are lying.

So we deduce from Socko's lying statement that...Lefty did not kill Sharky.

We deduce from Fats' true statement that...Muscles did not kill Sharky.

We deduce from Muscles lying statement that...Lefty did kill Sharky.

So Lefty did kill him, but also did not? That's a contradiction. So either case 3 or 4 is true. But you can figure using reasoning that one of them cannot happen...just like I did here.

CASE 3: 4 u
CASE 4: 4 u
 
  • #6
Wow..~ But i deduced tat is Muscle who did kill Sharky..T_T''
 

What evidence should I gather to reveal the murderer?

To reveal the murderer, you should gather any physical evidence such as fingerprints, DNA samples, and any other potential weapons or objects that may have been used in the crime. You should also gather witness statements and any other relevant information that could help identify the culprit.

What investigative techniques should I use to uncover the murderer?

Some common investigative techniques used to uncover a murderer include analyzing crime scene photos, conducting interviews and interrogations, and using forensic analysis on any evidence collected. You may also want to consider creating a timeline of events and looking for any inconsistencies or gaps in the suspect's alibi.

How can I determine the motive behind the murder?

To determine the motive behind the murder, you may need to look into the victim's personal life and relationships. You can also examine any potential conflicts or disputes the victim may have had with others. Additionally, analyzing the suspect's behavior and actions leading up to the murder may provide insight into their motive.

What role does technology play in solving a murder case?

Technology can play a significant role in solving a murder case. DNA analysis, surveillance footage, and cell phone records are just a few examples of how technology can provide crucial evidence in identifying a murderer. Social media and internet searches may also provide insights into the suspect's behavior and motives.

What should I do if I have a suspect but not enough evidence to prove their guilt?

If you have a suspect but not enough evidence to prove their guilt, you should continue to gather more evidence and investigate further. You may also want to consult with a legal advisor or law enforcement for guidance on how to proceed with the case. It is crucial to have sufficient evidence before accusing someone of a crime.

Similar threads

Who gets the biggest piece of pig on the deserted island?
    • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
Who is the Killer at the Beach Barbecue?
    • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
4K
Things I Learned from Movies
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top