4 thoughts on “The jewelry of a jewelry shop was stolen. After investigation, it was definitely what a person in A, B, C, and Dingzhong did”
Jenny
You can really solve the problem one by one.
I assume that A is true, then A is not a criminal. What was said was false. He said that Ding was a criminal, but Ding was not a criminal, but Ding should also be fake. Ding said that he was not a criminal, but he was a criminal, contradictions, and assuming that it was not established.
I assume that B is true, then Ding is a criminal, and A should be false. He said that I am not a criminal, then A is a criminal, contradiction, assuming that it is not established.
I assuming that C is true, then B is a criminal, and A should be false. He said that I am not a criminal, then A is a criminal, contradiction, assuming that it is not established.
I assume that Ding is true, then Ding is not a criminal, the other three people say that they are fake. It is not a criminal, and it is in line. C says that B is a criminal, and B is not a criminal, which is in line.
Ding is the truth, A is a criminal. Because only one of the four is a criminal, two people say that they are not criminals, and only one person says it is true. The criminal must be arisen among the two people. I said that Ding is a criminal. If Ding is a criminal, then A will tell the truth. In this way, there are two people who say the truth, which does not conform to the intention. This therefore solve it.
This is the test of administrative ability testing.
Pevant two people who are contradictory first. In this question, the contradiction between B and Ding. Therefore, the two of him must have one person. So A and Both are fake.
So A says that I am not a crime, that is, he is a crime. It also shows that Ding is telling the truth
You can really solve the problem one by one.
I assume that A is true, then A is not a criminal. What was said was false. He said that Ding was a criminal, but Ding was not a criminal, but Ding should also be fake. Ding said that he was not a criminal, but he was a criminal, contradictions, and assuming that it was not established.
I assume that B is true, then Ding is a criminal, and A should be false. He said that I am not a criminal, then A is a criminal, contradiction, assuming that it is not established.
I assuming that C is true, then B is a criminal, and A should be false. He said that I am not a criminal, then A is a criminal, contradiction, assuming that it is not established.
I assume that Ding is true, then Ding is not a criminal, the other three people say that they are fake. It is not a criminal, and it is in line. C says that B is a criminal, and B is not a criminal, which is in line.
Ding is the truth, A is a criminal.
Because only one of the four is a criminal, two people say that they are not criminals, and only one person says it is true. The criminal must be arisen among the two people.
I said that Ding is a criminal. If Ding is a criminal, then A will tell the truth. In this way, there are two people who say the truth, which does not conform to the intention.
This therefore solve it.
This is the test of administrative ability testing.
Pevant two people who are contradictory first. In this question, the contradiction between B and Ding. Therefore, the two of him must have one person. So A and Both are fake.
So A says that I am not a crime, that is, he is a crime. It also shows that Ding is telling the truth
Ding is right