This is a story about three people (A, B and C) crossing a desert.
A hated C and decided to kill him - he poisoned the water in his
sack (only C had water). B also wanted to kill C (not knowing
that the water of C had been already poisoned) and so B made a
hole into the sack of C and the water spilt out. A few days later
C died of thirst.
Who was the murderer - A or B?
Who was the murderer - A or B?
38 comments:
A few days later C died of thirst.
So it must be B
A is the murderer because even if B had not done anything C would have died.
B since c died of thirst
B
B
Exactly
Both A & B are murderer hypothetically, but there is no evidence for "A". So main Culprit is "B".
Both A & B are murderer hypothetically, but there is no evidence for "A". So main Culprit is "B".
I'd say A is the murderer! I don't know that B really committed murder he simply evened the playing field. A and B have no water themselves. Only A was actively 'killing' C directly. Even if it failed. I'm not sure I'm really just thinking out loud.
A is only guilty of attempted murder. His actions did not cause C death so he is not the murderer.
B's action directly caused C's death. It doesn't matter that he would have died anyway, if he had drunk the water. B is the murderer.
I want to know why A and B didn't die of thirst too.
The answer I think is A.
C died of "thirst a few days later" which means he didn't drink the water at all.
This could be voluntary - B after leaking the water could've had a drink and gotten poisoned. After seeing B get poisoned, C would've thrown the water away.
Schrodinger's cat
B only
of the two choices B is the murderer but truly thirst is the murderer
:)
Hypothetical quest..........
Between 3 of them only c had water.B was not aware of poisoning of water by A. So he may have drank the water and dies of poisoning. A is guilty of mudering B and not C as C didnot drink poisoned water and preferred to travel without drinking water and finally dies of thirst.So B was responsible for death of C as he had made a hole.
no its not that easy, its no one because he died of THIRST so its not a murder... you get it?
Both did for not giving him some of their water when he ran out of his
I would like to thank some of the posters for their analytics. Here's my take, for what it's worth.
Either A is the murderer of B and B the murderer of C, or A is the murderer of both B and C.
B surely would have take one last drink before he punched a hole in the sack.
If the poison acted more quickly than the water drained, C would have thrown the water away.
This would make A the murderer of both, First he poisoned B, then C was forced by A's actions to throw the water away and die.
If the water drained before the poison killed B, then B killed C, and A killed B.
BTW, a day later A was rescued. As he stepped into the open air of freedom, he was promptly killed by a stampede of Camel. Serves him right.
I feel like A would be the murderer just because if C drank the water, he would've died instantly .. If anything, B prolonged C's life by disabling him of drinking the poisoned water!
And also in any sense, C would have eventually died of thirst after running out of water anyway ..
I think that B is the murderer because regardless of whether or not A poisoned C's water so that C would have died if B didn't drain the water, the cause of death was thirst. B's action caused poison to not be C's cause of death, so B is the murderer.
Darby McDermott
B B-)
Easily B. Even if C drank the poisned water before B emptied it, it says C died of thirst so it must have benn B because B emptied the water and A did nothing to cause him to be thirsty.
Between 3 of them only c had water.B was not aware of poisoning of water by A. So he may have drank the water and dies of poisoning. A is guilty of mudering B and not C as C didnot drink poisoned water and preferred to travel without drinking water and finally dies of thirst.So B was responsible for death of C as he had made a hole.
Can a person be guilty of murder, if the means of death is thirst?
C knew the risks when he decided to cross the desert. If he believed he could reach the other side, he is innocent. If he didn't believe, then he walked into it to commit suicide. A and B are not guilty.
B was responsible for death of C as he had made a hole.
C is responsible for the death of C.
Anyone with the only sack of water crossing a desert with only two other people that allows one to poison it and the other to put a whole in it was to stupid to live.
Yes right , This would make A the murderer of both, First he poisoned B, then C was forced by A's actions to throw the water away and die.
B was the murderer
A,B,C suicided
I don't think either of them are to blame. A poisoned the water, but B technically saved C's life on accident. By saving his life from the poison, this accidentally caused him to die of thirst.
How is this Shroedinger's Cat?
neither of them were the murderer.
C died of natural causes. as well, A and B would both be dead long before C, since neither of them had any water to begin with. technically, none of this is murder.
At a price point of $499, and lots of other
places and even in the case when referring sexcam to Justice.
Here is my web blog; sex cam
It's immaterial. Only C had water. If C died of thirst, so must A and B. A and B would each have also killed the other and committed suicide, and if C was not going to share his water (the only logical conclusion if both A and B were willing to sabotage the water) then C would have also probably "murdered" A and B. The "fact" remains, though, that all three would be dead from thirst.
Post a Comment