Bob is looking at Anne. Anne isn't looking at Jim. Jim is married, Bob is not, and we don’t know if Anne is married. Susan is looking at Brian. Brian is divorced. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
I'll reveal the answer later in the week if nobody gets it.
You're a piece of shit.
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
The data is perfectly sufficient.
Let me know if you need more time to think. I love logic problems and this is one of the most ingenious I've ever come across.
Yes because Brian is a Catholic, their church doesn't believe in divorce.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
@previous (D)
> Yes because Brian is a Catholic
Nobody's religion is mentioned in the scenario.
@633,888 (A)
No, it isn't. Even if we make unsafe assumptions there is still insufficient data to determine who is looking at who.
- safe assumption #1: nobody can look at more than 1 person
- safe assumption #2: nobody is looking at themselves
We already know Bob is not looking at Jim because he's looking at Anne.
The same goes for Susan who is looking at Brian.
We know that Anne isn't looking at Jim, and we can assume that Jim is not looking at himself.
This doesn't help us unless we make an additional assumption...
- unsafe assumption #1: everybody has somebody looking at them
With this assumption we are forced to conclude that Brian is looking at Jim, and thus he cannot be looking at anyone else.
We then also eliminate the possibility that anyone else is looking at Anne or Brian.
We are then left with additional options which cannot be further narrowed based on the data available:
Anne or Jim could be looking at either Susan or Bob
And this doesn't even take into account the "marriage" aspect which would be used as a trip-up in a good logic puzzle because one's status as 'divorced' does not necessarily exclude the possibility that they have remarried.
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
> No, it isn't.
It is. Let me know if you want me to walk you through where you're going wrong in your 'reasoning'.