71. 

Let's start with a simple case. A major theft was committed at a warehouse. The criminal (or criminals) transported the stolen goods by car. Suspicion fell on three repeat offenders A, B, and C, who were brought to Scotland Yard for interrogation. The following was established:

1) No one other than A, B, and C was involved in the theft.
2) C never goes on a job without A (and possibly other accomplices).
3) B cannot drive a car.

Is A guilty or not guilty?

## 72

Another, also not complicated, theft case. Suspects A, B, and C were summoned for interrogation. The following was established:

1) No one other than A, B, and C was involved in the theft.
2) A never goes on a job without at least one accomplice.
3) C is not guilty.

Is B guilty or not guilty?
71. Let us first show that at least one of A, C is guilty. If B is not guilty, then it is clear that someone from A, C (or both) is guilty, since from statement (1) it follows that no one other than A, B, and C can be guilty. If B is guilty, then he must have an accomplice (since B does not know how to drive a car). Therefore, in this case, A or C must be guilty. Thus, someone from A and C (or both) is guilty. If C is not guilty, then A must be guilty. On the other hand, if C is guilty, then by statement (2) A is also guilty. Therefore, A is guilty.