Brain Teasers Optical Illusions Puzzle Hunts Codes & Ciphers Mechanical Puzzles
Personal Links
Browse Teasers
Search Teasers

The Victim

Logic puzzles require you to think. You will have to be logical in your reasoning.


Puzzle ID:#8672
Fun:*** (2.74)
Difficulty:*** (2.38)
Submitted By:lesternoronha1****
Corrected By:Anupriya9




One of four people - two men (Jack and Mike) and two women (Carol and Lily) - was murdered.
The following facts refer to the people mentioned:
(a) Jack's sister argued exactly once with Carol's legal husband after the murder.
(b) Mike's sister argued twice with the victim's legal spouse after the murder. Who was the victim?

What Next?


See another brain teaser just like this one...

Or, just get a random brain teaser

If you become a registered user you can vote on this brain teaser, keep track of
which ones you have seen, and even make your own.



Dec 15, 2002

Very tricky.
Your great at brainteasers!
Dec 31, 2002

I love these puzzles! I never get them, but I still LOVE them.

In this case I did get it! But when I read the solution, I used a much simpler logic. This suggests that, in fact, I just had a lucky guess!

But congratulations on a very tricky puzzle all wrapped up in just two lines.
Dec 31, 2002

hey flynn, if you've got a simpler solution put it as a comment for this teaser. It will help other people understand the teaser better.
Dec 31, 2002

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm missing something, but there seems to be a terrible flaw in your logic. Your teaser would work....assuming that you stated that these people had to be related. You never said that though. For all we know, Jack has no relation to any of them. Jack could live in Uganda, while the others are living in Japan. Nowhere does it state that these people are related in any way. In Part a), Jack’s sister could be Jenny, who argued with Carol’s husband, Mark. In part b), Mike’s sister, Ellen, argued twice with the victim’s spouse, Mary. These two statements don’t necessarally have any interrelation. Sorry, but as I see it, this is a poor teaser. If I’m totally off the mark, email me at If this teaser does work, please…..I deserve a flogging.
Dec 31, 2002

This is one of those problems where there appears to be only solution which does not create obvious conflicts, but there is no logical way to arrive at that conclusion by examining only the facts presented.
Dec 31, 2002

To supplement my earlier statement: From the way the two statements are presented its easy to make the assumption that there are some inter-relations, but there still could have been "outside" individuals involved.

To be fair though, this really was a tricky and well-designed problem.
Dec 31, 2002

that is a very cool and hard teaser
Jan 06, 2003

This post is in response to "pemalova" and "dpniner". If you read the given carefully you would see that the author has infact incorporated a comment that serves as the assumption that the 2 statements made are referring to the 4 people in question and ONLY to the 4 people in question. That is said right before the 2 statements. It states: "The following facts refer to the people mentioned:"
Based on that you should have known that the statements aren't referring to Jenny or Aunt Marva who lives in Uganda
Jan 07, 2003

Once again, you are overlooking the flaw. Nowhere does it say that these four people are either married or related by blood. It does state that the question refers to those people, but look back at the teaser and imagine that one boy is the child, another boy is the father, a woman is his mother, and the other is the woman's dentist.

Bottom line, this is a horrible teaser.
Jan 07, 2003

This is again in response to "pemalova". Once again you can imagine that these people are or aren't related if you like, but if you accept the fact that the 2 comments are about these 4 people only, then you have to accept the relations that these 2 comments are suggesting. For example when it says "Mike's sister..." you have to accept that Mike's sister has to be one of the 4 people listed above, since the comments refer to the 4 people listed above.
Jan 29, 2003

this is in reference to the whole pemalova-sakirski debate.

While I understand your point sakirski and I think the assumption is the only logical way of interpreting the riddle, I would say that pemalova is exactly right. Where it says that the 2 statements refer to the people, those conditions would be met even if the sister's were totally other people. The first refers to Jack and the second refers to Mike.

Overall, this riddle is endemic of so many "home-made" riddle websites. The real trick is the ambiguous nature in the wording. If they are properly addressed then they are too easy as this one would be if worded correctly.
Feb 13, 2003

The sentence: "The following facts refer to the people mentioned:"
Restricts Jack's sister to be a member of the set of sisters, but it does not restrict the set of sisters to the two women mentioned.
All statements are equally valid, logically, when the sisters are not members of the set of people mentioned.

You can infer, however, that since there is NO exclusive solution to the problem when the relationships involve other people, the relationships must involve only the people mentioned.

I would reword the problem to eliminate the flaw.
Jun 03, 2003

tricky tricky are we good job!!
Dec 31, 2003

It's obvious that you have to assume these people are related. The fact that it doesn't say in concrete wording "These people are all related," is not enough to qualify this teaser as, as you put it, "a horrible teaser."
Dec 31, 2003

Part B..the logic in the answer is flawed. If Mike and Jack's sister are the same person, then (a) reads "Lily argued exactly once with (Mike or Jack)" and (b) reads "Lily argued twice with victim's legal spouse (this could be a woman or man)after the murder
Jan 03, 2004

Sorry Lester but this one was a bad teaser In your answers your start off your explanations with the tiny little word "IF". When you do this you proove conclusively that the teaser is not logical as the category states. There is not enough info in the teaser to reach a logical conclusion. So that brings guessing about relationships into the teaser and then I am force to got to the Latin to explain your teaser in two words

Jan 03, 2004

First off, may I throw in my two cents worth and say that it was perfectly clear to me that there were four and only four people involved here. I'm not sure why some of you are having trouble with this. As Lester explains in the answer, Jack's sister and Mike's sister can't possibly be the same person. Once you know this, you know that this group has to consist of two sets of brothers and sisters. Testing whether Jack's sister is Carol or Lily should make you reach the answer as given. If you think that the logic here is flawed, please provide an answer that works. I think you'll find that you can't do it.
Jan 03, 2004

That is to say, "please provide ANOTHER answer that works." Oh, and by the way, it is perfectly logical to use an IF-Then statement in this situation. Proving that the "Then" is not possible proves that the "If" is not possible either. It is not illogical to do this.
Jul 11, 2004

I never realized these people were married or had siblings, try to reword it. Otherwise Good One
Dec 29, 2004

it was a little challenging but it was fun.
Jan 01, 2005

The fact that the sisters referred to one of the girls mentioned never even occured to me...
Jan 01, 2005

From the comments listed, some of you need to make "ease your mind" your New Year's resolution! Great teaser by the way!!!
Jan 01, 2005

my brain hurtz...
Jan 01, 2005

that was great!!! very tricky i might add, but it was no biggy....
(user deleted)
Jan 01, 2005

that hurt my brain
Jan 01, 2005

First of all, there is in no way enough information to come to any kind of logical conclusion. Just because you argue with someone, does not mean you someone will be killed. Very weak indeed!
Jan 01, 2005

all you guys need to let it go.
If you think you can do better,
put one in yourself.
Good Job on the teaser.
Jan 02, 2005

Please try to edit it b'coz I can't understand it. No offense but I think your teaser is very poor. (SORRY!!!)
Jan 02, 2005

That was totally awesome. My brain already is hurting and it's just the first of the year, and I already have brain freeze!
Jan 02, 2005

LOL I got that was easy
Jan 02, 2005

This is in response to "sakirski",
I would have to agree with u... thats all i have to say to u!!!

Jan 03, 2005

This teaser makes you assume that that the four people are related to each other. It needs to indicate that in the teaser because mkies sister could be any one, not either carol or lily, but someone not mentioned. Too much assumption.
May 24, 2012

Okay there is flaw with the assumptions. If Jack and Carol are brother and sister and Mike and Lily are brother and sister. Jack is married to Lily and Mike is married to Carol. If this is the case, then (a) reads "Carol argued once with Mike" and (b) reads "Lily argued twice with Carol". You said Lily herself instead of Mike. But the second reads : Mike's sister (who is Lily) argued twice with the victim's legal spouse (who is Carol not Lily herself) after the murder. And you know spouse means marital partner. So yeah huge flaw. So yeah Jack either Jack or Mike is dead.

Back to Top

Online Now
4 users and 543 guests

Users In Chat
Follow Braingle!
Fold 'N Fly Paper Airplanes
Easy to follow folding instructions and videos.
Copyright © 1999-2017 | FAQ | Widgets | Links | Green | Subscribe | Contact | Privacy | Conditions | Advertise | Braingle Time: 4:12 am
Sign In Create a free account