Scribd
Upload
96 views3 pages

The Case of The Stolen Smartphones: A B C D

Canebin, Leroy, Charles, and Sean were suspects in the theft of students' smartphones on campus. Canebin claimed he would only steal if Leroy helped, Leroy claimed he stole only if Canebin or Sean were involved too, Charles denied stealing, and Sean denied his or Leroy's involvement. Using their statements and the facts that exactly one person was lying and two people were involved, the thieves were determined to be Canebin and Leroy, with Sean being the liar.

Uploaded by

Elloani Ross Arcenal Pitogo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views3 pages

The Case of The Stolen Smartphones: A B C D

Canebin, Leroy, Charles, and Sean were suspects in the theft of students' smartphones on campus. Canebin claimed he would only steal if Leroy helped, Leroy claimed he stole only if Canebin or Sean were involved too, Charles denied stealing, and Sean denied his or Leroy's involvement. Using their statements and the facts that exactly one person was lying and two people were involved, the thieves were determined to be Canebin and Leroy, with Sean being the liar.

Uploaded by

Elloani Ross Arcenal Pitogo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Group 4

Mebers: Elloani Ross Pitogo


Canebin Gulbin
Charles Chiong
John Leroy Damulo
Sean Michael Fabregas

THE CASE OF THE STOLEN SMARTPHONES

Scenario:
During an investigation into the mysterious disappearance of students smartphones inside the campus,
the following statements were made by the prime suspects:

Canebin:

I wouldnt steal any smartphones unless Leroy helped me.

Charles:

Me? Steal smartphones? Of course not! Im too honest for that. Besides, I can afford to
buy as many as I want!

Leroy:

If I stole it, then either Canebin or Sean was in too.

Sean:

Neither Leroy nor I were involved.

Given that exactly one of the four suspect is lying and exactly two of them were involved in the theft, who
are the thieves and who is lying?

Solution:
1. Symbolize the alternative propositions.
Let:
A

Canebin stole the smartphones.

Charles stole the smartphones.

Leroy stole the smartphones.

Sean stole the smartphones.

2. Put the statements of the suspects into an equation.

Canebins statemen =

-A v (A ^ C)

Charles statement =

-B

Leroys statement =

C --> (A v B)

Seans statement =

-(C v D)

3. Construct a truth table.

A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

B
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1

C
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1

D
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1

-A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

(A ^ C)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1

-A v (A ^ C)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1

-B
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0

(A v B)
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

C --> (A v B)
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

(C v D)
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1

-(C v D)
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

4. Look at the scenario again and understand. Understanding it is the key. Make a conclusion afterwards
and check if your conclusion makes logical sense.
From the fact that one is lying, therefore three of the equations must be true (1) and one must
be false (0).
That leads us to five options: rows 2, 5, 9, 11 and 12 have only one false (0) under the columns
of the four equations (orange).

From the fact that two them are thieves, therefore one of the five rows must have two trues (1)
and two false (0) under the columns of the four propositions (green).
That leaves us only row 11.

As a conclusion, we can say that:


Canebin and Leroy stole the smartphones.
Sean is the liar.

You might also like