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?
51 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
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.
B because he emptied the C's sack of water.
no one killed him he died of thirst
What did C do to make A and B hate him?
Thats my question.
none, C died of thirst. it means that his death was accidental.
We have decided that no one murdered C, he could not have been killed by A--he did not drink the poisoned water. B did not murder him, he actually in inadvertently saved his life even for a short time. Thirst caused his demise.
Suppose that B knew that A poisoned the water, and to save C's life, B, told C "the water is poisoned." C emptied the sack, and crossed the desert, and died of thirst in the end. Is B the murderer? What is the difference between this one and the original question? B's intention?
Suppose B knew that A poisoned the water, to save C's life, B made a hole. And C died of thirst. Is B the murderer?
A and B are both murderers in their hearts. This depends on whose perspective we are viewing. Police, no one since he died of thirst. Lawyer...B drained the water, thereby causing C's death. Lawyer..A, since B saved C from poisoning, draining the water saved him...A caused it all. God...A and B since He looks at the heart. C's mom...C's fault...I told him not to hang around with those thugs.
B because even though A poisoned the water, C didn't drink the water.
B because even though A poisoned the water, C didn't drink the water.
all i know is i feel bad for this C guy. And how does A have poison but no water?
The Important thing is Reason..
C died bcz of Thirst so thirst is the reason of death and who wants to make him thirsty??
i. e. "B" so he is the murderer..
There was no murder as C died of Thirst !
I think A and B both are murderer.
Trick question. As C died of THIRST, neither A nor B killed him. This question doesn't quite make sense though because how did C die of thirst before A and B did?
It was B. A tried to kill C with poisoned water, but B saved C by removing the water. C also died because of that, so the answer is B.
Technically speaking, B was the culprit. C died of thirst, so whether or not A poisoned C's water, C would've died. B was the one to puncture the water, so he's the reason C died of thirst.
Post a Comment