I think that your puzzle not only fails to have enough information, but that one of the steps in your explanation fails to follow at all. That is to say, I wouldn’t feel convinced even if Sherlock Holmes said it.
Agreed. Vs gur urnqcubarf unq orybatrq gb gur zbivr punenpgre engure guna gur ivrjre, jr pbhyq unir thrffrq gung gurl jrer qnzntrq va gur fnzr vapvqrag, but it didn’t even make that much sense.
. . . I had to know you were giving hints, and that you wanted us to reason by weak association. So Holmesian reasoning is worthless unless you happen to know the situation is contrived.
I think that your puzzle not only fails to have enough information, but that one of the steps in your explanation fails to follow at all. That is to say, I wouldn’t feel convinced even if Sherlock Holmes said it.
Which one?
Gur bar gung fnlf gung gur oebxra urnqcubar vf ba gur fnzr fvqr nf gur oebxra yrt. Jul qb gurl unir nalguvat gb qb jvgu rnpu bgure?
Huh, I would have guessed you were referring to the assumptions about foot order.
Agreed. Vs gur urnqcubarf unq orybatrq gb gur zbivr punenpgre engure guna gur ivrjre, jr pbhyq unir thrffrq gung gurl jrer qnzntrq va gur fnzr vapvqrag, but it didn’t even make that much sense.
A fair point. knb sums it up pretty well: