An honest king decided to give death penalty to his minister for some mistake. But he gave him two options: "If you tell correctly what I am thinking now, you will be hanged. But if your guess is wrong, you will be killed by throwing to crocodiles". The clever minister made a statement such that the king could not kill him. The statement made by the minister is
You are going to throw me to the crocodiles.
Understanding the King and Minister Logic Puzzle
This question presents a classic logic puzzle involving a king, his minister, and a peculiar set of conditions for a death penalty. The goal is to find a statement that the minister can make to escape the death sentence by making it impossible for the king to carry out his threat under the given rules.
The King's Rules
The king gives the minister two options for execution based on whether the minister correctly guesses the king's current thought:
- Rule 1: If the minister tells correctly what the king is thinking, the minister will be hanged. (Correct guess → Hanged)
- Rule 2: If the minister's guess is wrong, the minister will be killed by throwing to crocodiles. (Wrong guess → Killed by crocodiles)
The minister needs to make a statement that creates a logical paradox for the king, preventing either rule from being applied consistently.
Analyzing the Minister's Statement Options
Let's examine each possible statement the minister could make and see if it allows the king to carry out the execution according to his rules.
Option 1: "You are going to kill me."
If the minister says, "You are going to kill me," consider the possibilities:
- Scenario A: Suppose the king is thinking, "I am going to kill the minister." The minister's statement matches the king's thought. This is a correct guess. According to Rule 1, the minister should be hanged. This scenario is consistent. The king can simply hang the minister.
This statement does not prevent the execution.
Option 3: "You are going to hang me."
If the minister says, "You are going to hang me," consider the possibilities:
- Scenario A: Suppose the king is thinking, "I am going to hang the minister." The minister's statement matches the king's thought. This is a correct guess. According to Rule 1, the minister should be hanged. This scenario is consistent. The king can simply hang the minister.
This statement does not prevent the execution.
Option 4: "You are not going to kill me."
If the minister says, "You are not going to kill me," consider the possibilities:
- Scenario A: Suppose the king is thinking, "I am not going to kill the minister." The minister's statement matches the king's thought. This is a correct guess. According to Rule 1, the minister should be hanged. However, this contradicts the king's thought, which was "I am not going to kill the minister." So, the king cannot be thinking this.
- Scenario B: Suppose the king is thinking, "I am going to kill the minister." The minister's statement ("You are not going to kill me") does not match the king's thought. This is a wrong guess. According to Rule 2, the minister should be killed by crocodiles. This scenario is consistent. The king can simply kill the minister by crocodiles.
Since the king has a consistent way to proceed (Scenario B), this statement does not prevent the execution.
Option 2: "You are going to throw me to the crocodiles."
If the minister says, "You are going to throw me to the crocodiles," consider the possibilities:
- Scenario A: Suppose the king is thinking, "I am going to throw the minister to the crocodiles." The minister's statement matches the king's thought. This is a correct guess. According to Rule 1, the minister should be hanged. But if the minister is hanged, the king's initial thought ("I am going to throw him to the crocodiles") was actually false. If the king's thought was false, the minister's statement was a wrong guess. This leads to a contradiction: if the guess was correct, he is hanged; but being hanged makes the guess wrong.
- Scenario B: Suppose the king is thinking, "I am NOT going to throw the minister to the crocodiles." The minister's statement ("You are going to throw me to the crocodiles") does not match the king's thought. This is a wrong guess. According to Rule 2, the minister should be killed by crocodiles. But if the minister is killed by crocodiles, the minister's statement ("You are going to throw me to the crocodiles") was actually true. If the minister's statement was true, his guess was correct. This leads to a contradiction: if the guess was wrong, he is killed by crocodiles; but being killed by crocodiles makes the guess correct.
In both scenarios, assuming the statement is true or false based on the king's potential thought leads to a contradiction when applying the king's rules. The king cannot consistently determine if the minister's guess was correct or wrong and therefore cannot apply either penalty without breaking his own rules or creating a paradox. This is the statement that saves the minister.
Conclusion
The statement that prevents the king from being able to kill the minister according to his rules is the one that creates a logical paradox when its truthfulness is tested against the outcomes prescribed by the rules. The statement "You are going to throw me to the crocodiles" achieves this.
Important Questions from Statements and Inferences
“India is a country of rich heritage and cultural diversity.”
Which one of the following facts best supports the claim made in the above sentence?
Yoga has become a very popular exercise today. But before one joins a yoga class, he/she needs to examine the kind of fitness routine that he/she expects. If one is looking for a high energy, fast-paced aerobic workout, a yoga class might not be the best choice. The statement that best supports this paragraph is
Sita is a twelve year old girl. For many years, she has been asking her parents for a pet dog. Her parents told her that a dog would not be happy in an apartment, but they have given her permission to have a bird. Sita has not yet decided what kind of bird she would like to have. The statement that best supports this paragraph is
Directions: A statement is given followed by two inferences I and II. You have to consider the statement to be true even if it seems to be at variance with commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given inferences, if any, follow from the given statement.
Statement:
Extensive use of pesticides in agricultural production contaminates soil and water, remain in the crops and finally enter food chain, thereby posing threat to the human beings.
Inference:
I. Excessive use of pesticides in agricultural production is not good for people.
II. Excessive use of pesticides in agricultural production can have a bad effect on water.
In this question, two statements I and II have been given. These statements may be independent causes or effects of independent causes or a common cause. One of the statements may be the effect of the other statement. Read both statements and select the correct answer.
I. Country X reduced their crude oil import by 6% in the last 5 years.
II. The automobile industry in Country X has witnessed a sharp decline of 13% in its growth margin this year.
