For collective scoring purposes, game 1’s players will be: @Whistle_Pig, @RossM, @Assussanni, @RogerBW, @InkyBloc, @COMaestro, and anyone else who joins in and posts a solution to case 1 before we move on to the next case (once the aforementioned have submitted their answers).
The minimum solution is the name of the culprit(s). If you wish to use a timer then also provide the relevant time bracket (or the time itself). Feel free to include your reasoning, but this is not required. If you choose to pass, just write pass as your solution.
Before you submit your solution, highlight the text and use the “Hide details” option in the options menu (the + sign in a circle) to prevent spoilers for other players.
Case 1/8, dossier 3.
Time brackets:
(a) <= 2 mins
(b) 2-4 mins
(c) 4-8 mins
(d) 8+ mins
(x) not using a timer
Shark - Iguana’s statement must be false - if a Herbivore did it, then one BOTH of Shark’s and Panther’s statements must be false and that isn’t allowed. Therefore following Peacock’s statement of the culprit being taller than 190cm, it has to be Shark.
I had to read the rules first oO and it took me a minute to find the statement that there is 1 lie.
Iguana is lying. (Either Panter or Iguana have to be lying because they have mutually exclusive statements.)
Shark is the culprit. (If Peacock tells the truth, there is only one possible culprit taller than 190cm → Shark)
Sounds like a really fun game. But I have no idea with going to that work event that I will have time to post solutions. I will try to because I love deduction puzzles but…
With a single lie situation like this, I basically just try each set of 1 lie + 3 truths, because all but one are going to fail in some way, so the first one that doesn’t fail is what I’m going to go with.
If panther is lying then peacock must also be lying.
If if peacock is lying then shark didn’t do it, but shark’s statement absolves peacock, and panther and iguana’s statements exonerate each other.
If shark is lying then peacock must also be lying.
Therefore, iguana is lying. This means peacock is telling the truth leaving shark as the only culprit, which is not contradicted by panther or shark’s statements.
Good work, squad; no one tripped at the first hurdle. That criminal barely had time to commit a crime before you’d solved it. The commissioner rates your performance at a very impressive 97%!
But there’s no time to celebrate – we have another case on our hands!
Case 2/8, dossier 4.
Time brackets:
(a) <= 2 mins
(b) 2-4 mins
(c) 4-8 mins
(d) 8+ mins
(x) not using a timer
Shark is the culprit, and Panther and Iguana are lying.
If shark is lying then panther is telling the truth, but iguana and peacock’s statements would then require either zero or two culprits to have one be lying and the other telling the truth.
