A Carnivore Did It! - PBF game 2

See A Carnivore Did It! - PBF recruitment and discussion for more information, and game 1 for cases from dossiers 3-12.

Anyone can play – if you submit solutions, you’re playing :). You don’t need to have taken part in game 1 (but I do recommend you work through some of those cases first). If you intend to play and have not yet voted on the format for game 2, please do so.

As with game 1, I may continue to the next case before all of the reports are in for the previous case, and I’ll simply remove a detective from active duty if they’ve missed 3 cases – so feel free to join in and bail out later if you can’t continue with it. Off-duty detectives need only submit the missing reports to reinstate themselves. (Similarly, late-comers are welcome.)

The minimum solution is the name of the culprits (always plural from this point onwards). 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 13.

Time brackets:
(a) <= 2 mins
(b) 2-4 mins
(c) 4-8 mins
(d) 8+ mins
(x) not using a timer

5 suspects, 2 culprits, 1 lie

Start your timer / begin solving

3 Likes
< 2 minutes

Panther and Peacock did it.

Didn’t really focus on the lie because it was either Peacock or Dog lying, so I just looked at the other three who had to be true. That means Panther is directly accused, and Peacock is indirectly accused by Panther and Shark (although I did forget about Peacock briefly and tried to figure out how Iguana and Panther’s heights were less than 10 cm apart).

Side question for @Phil about the rules/logic: Dog is lying, right? His statement means “None of the suspects next to me did it”, so a lie means “At least one (and possibly but not necessarily all) of the suspects next to me did it”, right?

1 Like
2-4 mins

Thought I had it in a minute, then realized a logic error.
Panther and Peacock did it. Dog is lying.

1 Like
<2m

Dog :cross_mark: → because then Peacock is the 1 lie and everyone else is telling the truth but then Panther’s statement wouldn’t be true because the height difference between Shark and Peacock is > 10cm and according to Dog they would have to be 2 culprits…

When Dog is the liar, everyone else is telling the truth.
Iguana :white_check_mark: → 1 culprit is Panther :skull_and_crossbones:
Shark :white_check_mark: → either Peacock or Iguana are the remaining culprit
Panther :white_check_mark: → the 10cm condition let’s us know Peacock is :skull_and_crossbones: #2

So Peacock and Panther are the :skull_and_crossbones: culprits and Dog is the :cross_mark: liar.

1 Like
1:08.46

Panther and Peacock did it, and Dog is the only liar.

1 Like

@InkyBloc: Yep, that’s the correct inversion of that statement.

1 Like
8 mins

Panther and peacock with dog lying

1 Like
2-4 minutes

Panther and Peacock are the culprits, Dog is lying.

If dog is telling the truth then both peacock and iguana are lying, which cannot be the case. So dog is the only one lying.

I then made the classic error of false = opposite is true and got stuck with an unsolveable problem for a couple of minutes before realising my mistake.

With panther as one culprit from iguana’s statement, the only suspect that fits both panther and shark’s statements is peacock.

1 Like

Case 2/8, dossier 13.

Time brackets:
(a) <= 2 mins
(b) 2-4 mins
(c) 4-8 mins
(d) 8+ mins
(x) not using a timer

5 suspects, 2 culprits, 1 lie

Start your timer / begin solving

<2 minutes

Shark and Iguana did it, and Iguana is also lying.

Try panther and shark as the culprits, but this leads to all statements being true.

Note that panther and peacock’s statements are effectively identical, so shark is a culprit but panther is not. Therefore, iguana is lying, which means dog is telling the truth which means peacock and dog are not the second culprit. The only suspect left is iguana.

2 Likes
50.74sec

Shark and Iguana did it, Iguana is the liar-liar-pants-aflame.

1 Like
4 mins

Shark and iguana with iguana lying

1 Like
2:03

Shark and Iguana are the culprits.

Got the Shark/Panther/Peacock situation pretty quick, but got tripped up on reconciling that with Dog and Iguana.

1 Like
2-4min

Peacock :white_check_mark: & Panther :white_check_mark:-> :skull_and_crossbones: Shark → can’t both be liars.
Shark :white_check_mark:-> accuses themselves and or Panther since we already found out they are sus’ they aren’t lying.

So either Iguana is lying or Dog is lying. But if Iguana is telling the truth, then Panther is the second culprit and therefore Dog is also telling the truth so, Iguana must be a liar.
Dog :white_check_mark: → Dog and Peacock are not sus’
Iguana :cross_mark: → Therefore the Panther is not sus’
Which leaves Iguana as the final sus’ :skull_and_crossbones:

Iguana is lying and the culprits are Iguana and Shark.

1 Like

Case 3/8, dossier 14.

Time brackets:
(a) <= 2 mins
(b) 2-4 mins
(c) 4-8 mins
(d) 8+ mins
(x) not using a timer

5 suspects, 2 culprits, 3 lies

Start your timer / begin solving

Case 2/8, dossier 13

2-4 mins

Shark and Iguana did it. Iguana is lying.

Case 3/8, dossier 14

1 minute

Shark and Dog did it. Dog and Peacock are telling the truth.

<2 minutes

Shark and Dog are the culprits, Panther, Shark and Iguana are lying.

Try shark true, which makes iguana true. This makes peacock also true, which is not enough lies.

Therefore, shark and iguana are false and two of the remaining three statements must be true. Since panther is exonerated by iguana’s lie, peacock and dog’s statements are either both true or both false. Therefore, both are true and panther is lying.

This points to shark as one culprit, due to dog’s statement, and a carnivore who isn’t panther as the other, from panther and iguana’s lies. The only suspect who fits that is dog.

4-8 minutes

Dog and Panther did it.

Had a really hard time finding a starting place for this one! Also kept confusing lying with culpritude.

Edit: I looked at the other two answers above me. We differ! I’m confident in mine though. Iguana and Peacock are the truth tellers; the Dog/Shark ending would mean Dog is simultaneously Truth and Lie.

2 Likes
2min 51sec

Shark and Dog did it. Peacock and Dog are telling the truth, everyone else is lying.

To InkyBloc:

Since there are 2 culprits, Dog’s statement is allowed to be both True (for one suspect) and False (for the other). The statements are a pass-fail where they must be true once for them to be true (Peacock stating that “A Suspect Next to me did it” is true if BOTH suspects are next to her, because it was true for one case and that’s sufficient.)
If Dog’s statement was “Everyone who Did It is taller than 190cm”, then it would be exclusively a lie this in this case.

I think! I could be totally wrong! But I tend to be pretty good at these kinds of If Y then Z sorta logic puzzles… this one was tricky for me because I couldn’t find a could starting point due to how many lies there were, but in the end I knew it couldn’t be Shark or Iguana telling the truth because then everyone else has to be lying and that would be impossible because if Panther did it, Peacock is also telling the truth, which is impossible… and so on). And if Iguana is telling the truth, then by default Shark must be telling the truth, so you have too many Truth-ers. Anyway! Ramble! I’m not sure I’m right, but if I am, I hope the clarification about Dog helps!

@Marx I think you misunderstood what I’m objecting to. The issue is Shark’s statement. He says the shortest culprit (Dog, as we all agree) is telling the Truth. We also all agree that Shark is lying, meaning Dog is not telling the Truth. So Dog’s statement, “Someone taller than 190cm did it”, is false. Shark is the only tall suspect, so he did NOT do it. I’m pretty good at these logic puzzles too :wink: Have you been playing Clues By Sam? Highly recommend.

3 Likes