Question

Based only on the fact that the five-digit code was used to open the display case, who is the only plausible suspect among the three?

• A. Anjali
• B. Bharat
• C. Chitra
• D. Both Anjali and Chitra
• A. 11{:}45 PM
• B. 12{:}05 AM
• C. 12{:}45 AM
• D. 10{:}50 PM
• A. The medallion was present at 10{:}30 PM
• B. The security logs indicating the code was used
• C. The museum closing time of 10{:}00 PM
• D. The time frame of his alibi (8{:}00 PM to 1{:}30 AM)
• A. Bharat, because he had the technical expertise to get close to the case
• B. Chitra, because she was near the museum late that night
• C. Anjali, because she is known to wear a coat with similar buttons
• D. Mr.Hemant, as he was the last person to check the area
• A. Correlation does not imply causation
• B. If an event requires presence, confirmed absence proves innocence
• C. The rule of double jeopardy
• D. The burden of proof lies with the accuser
• A. Bharat must have had an accomplice who knew the code
• B. Chitra's alibi is false because she had enough time to commit the crime after leaving the studio
• C. Anjali is the most likely suspect because the code was used and she has a direct link to the physical evidence (the button)
• D. Mr.Hemant is secretly the thief and is trying to frame the former employees
• A. She must know the five digit code
• B. She must have left the graphic design studio before 11{:}45 PM
• C. The theft must have occurred after she left the studio and before 1{:}00 AM
• D. She must have worked with Anjali to disable the locks

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Looking at just the code fact by itself keeps this simple.

Two people knew the five-digit code: Anjali and the museum director. The director was out of the country that night, so he's out of the running by default.

That leaves Anjali as the only person, among everyone actually in the picture, who had the knowledge to open the case this way. Bharat's remark about bypassing the lock doesn't apply because the log shows the code was used, not a bypass, and Chitra is never linked to the code anywhere in the account.
On this one fact alone, Anjali is the only suspect who fits.

Answer 2

This can also be settled with a simple counting argument: how many people in the whole scenario actually knew the code, and how many of them are live suspects.

1. Anjali: The pool of code-holders has exactly two names, Anjali and the director. Removing the director, who was abroad and unavailable, leaves a pool of exactly one, Anjali.
2. Bharat: Bharat isn't in the code-holder pool at all, his connection to the lock was a claimed workaround, not knowledge of the digits, and the log rules out that workaround anyway.
3. Chitra: Chitra also isn't in the code-holder pool, no fact anywhere states or implies she knew the code.
4. Both Anjali and Chitra: Since the pool of people who ever knew the code has just two names to begin with, and Chitra was never one of them, she can't be added into this answer alongside Anjali.

Counting the code-holder pool down to who's actually available among the three suspects leaves exactly one name.

So the correct answer is Anjali.

Answer 3

Step 1: Chitra is last seen leaving the studio at \(11{:}45\) PM, and the drive to the museum takes \(20\) minutes.

Step 2: Add the \(20\) minutes in two chunks: first add \(15\) minutes to reach the top of the hour, \(11{:}45 \text{ PM} + 15 \text{ min} = 12{:}00 \text{ AM}\) (midnight).

Step 3: That leaves \(5\) minutes of the drive still to add, \(12{:}00 \text{ AM} + 5 \text{ min} = 12{:}05 \text{ AM}\).
\[ \boxed{12{:}05 \text{ AM}} \]

Answer 4

Since the question asks for the earliest possible arrival, think of \(11{:}45\) PM plus \(20\) minutes as a hard floor, no answer can be earlier than that without breaking one of the two known facts.

1. 11{:}45 PM: Treating this as the arrival time would require the drive to take zero minutes, which contradicts the stated 20-minute drive.
2. 12{:}05 AM: This sits exactly at the floor set by the departure time plus the drive time, with no assumption stretched in either direction. It is the earliest time that respects both known facts.
3. 12{:}45 AM: This is above the floor, it would only be correct if something delayed her by an extra 40 minutes, which nothing in the passage supports, so it's not the earliest possible time.
4. 10{:}50 PM: This falls before she was even seen leaving the studio, so it's below what's physically possible, not a valid floor at all.

The only time that sits exactly at the earliest physically possible point, without contradicting either fact, is 12{:}05 AM.

So the correct answer is 12{:}05 AM.

Answer 5

The trick here is to hold Bharat's guilt as true for a moment and see which fact can no longer also be true.

The medallion's presence at 10{:}30 PM, the code showing up in the logs, and the museum's 10{:}00 PM closing time are all facts that exist independently of any one person's guilt, they would stay exactly the same whether Bharat, Anjali, or anyone else turns out to be the thief.

His alibi is different. It's the one fact that talks specifically about where Bharat was, and it says he was elsewhere for the whole theft window with several witnesses backing that up. If he were actually the thief, that specific claim about his own location has to be false, since he can't be in two places at once.
That makes the alibi's time frame the fact that must be wrong.

Answer 6

Sort the four facts into two buckets: facts about the museum or the medallion, and facts about a specific person's whereabouts. Only a fact in the second bucket can be threatened by Bharat turning out to be guilty.

1. The medallion was present at 10{:}30 PM: This belongs to the "museum and object" bucket. It stays true no matter who stole the medallion afterward.
2. The security logs indicating the code was used: Also in the "museum and object" bucket, a system log entry that exists independent of the culprit's identity.
3. The museum closing time of 10{:}00 PM: Same bucket again, a fixed operating detail unrelated to who did it.
4. The time frame of his alibi (8{:}00 PM to 1{:}30 AM): This is the one fact in the "person's whereabouts" bucket, and it happens to be about Bharat specifically. If he is guilty, this is the only fact with the power to be false.

Since three of the four facts are about the museum or the object and stay true regardless of who is guilty, only the fact about Bharat's own location can be the incorrect one.

So the correct answer is the time frame of his alibi.

Answer 7

Physical evidence like a button matters most when it points at one particular person instead of describing a general situation.

Bharat's technical skill only tells us what he's capable of, it doesn't put an actual object of his at the scene. Chitra being away from the museum, at her studio, doesn't connect any belonging of hers to the display case either. Mr. Hemant checking the area is just his normal duty as the guard, not suspicious on its own.

The button is different because it's a specific, distinctive item, and it's found close to where Anjali is known to wear a coat with matching buttons. That's an actual object placing her, not just a possibility about her.
That direct object-to-person link is what makes the button most incriminating against Anjali.

Answer 8

Another way to weigh this is to ask, for each suspect, whether their story actually explains why a button matching a specific coat style would end up near the display case.

1. Bharat: His story is about bypassing a lock electronically, nothing about his account involves wearing or losing a button anywhere near the case.
2. Chitra: Her story places her at a design studio across town for most of the evening, with nothing connecting any item of hers to the museum at all.
3. Anjali: Her known habit of wearing a coat with unique silver buttons directly explains how a matching button could plausibly fall off near the case if she had been standing right there.
4. Mr. Hemant: Nothing about a guard's routine check involves losing a distinctive button, and there's no coat detail linking him to this specific item.

Only Anjali's known coat habit actually explains how this particular button could have ended up at that particular spot.

So the correct answer is Anjali, because she is known to wear a coat with similar buttons.

Answer 9

Strip the detective's statement down to its bare logic: being at the museum during the theft window was a must for being the thief, and Bharat is confirmed to not have been there for the entire window.

Since presence was required and presence is ruled out, guilt is ruled out too, that's the whole argument in one line. None of the other three ideas fit this shape: one is about wrongly linking two things as cause and effect, one is a legal rule against a second trial, and one is about who has to argue a case.
The only option that matches "presence was needed, and it's confirmed absent, so innocence follows" is the second one.

Answer 10

Translate the detective's claim into a simple if-then form, then see which listed option is really just that same if-then statement in words: if you commit the theft, then you were present at the museum during the window; Bharat was not present; so Bharat did not commit the theft.

1. Correlation does not imply causation: This has no if-then shape resembling the detective's claim, it's a warning about statistics and coincidence, not a deduction from presence to guilt.
2. If an event requires presence, confirmed absence proves innocence: Written out, this is exactly if guilt, then presence; no presence, so no guilt, which is precisely the if-then chain used above.
3. The rule of double jeopardy: This if-then would read something like if already tried, then cannot be tried again, a completely different statement about legal process, not about physical presence.
4. The burden of proof lies with the accuser: This is about who must supply evidence in an argument, not an if-then statement linking presence and guilt at all.

Only one option restates the same if-then logic the detective is using.

So the correct answer is If an event requires presence, confirmed absence proves innocence.

Answer 11

The safest way to pick a "most reasonable inference" question is to reward whichever option leans only on facts already given, and reject any option that adds a new assumption.

An accomplice for Bharat is never mentioned anywhere, that's an added guess. Calling Chitra's alibi false ignores the actual timestamped video evidence instead of using it. Blaming Mr. Hemant has zero support, nothing about him is suspicious in the passage.

The option about Anjali just restates two things we already know, that she was one of the only two people who knew the code, and that the button matches her coat, and puts them together.
Since that's the only option built purely from stated facts, it's the most reasonable inference.

Answer 12

Score each option by how many facts it actually uses versus how many it has to assume out of thin air.

1. Bharat had an accomplice: Uses zero established facts and assumes an entire extra person and event, the weakest possible score.
2. Chitra's alibi is false: Actively goes against an established fact, the timestamped footage, rather than merely assuming something extra, an even worse score since it contradicts the record.
3. Anjali is the most likely suspect: Uses two facts directly from the passage, the code being known only to her among the suspects, and the button matching her coat, and assumes nothing beyond them.
4. Mr. Hemant is the thief: Uses zero facts and assumes a hidden motive and a framing scheme that the passage never raises.

Ranked this way, the Anjali option is the only one that scores purely on established facts with no invented assumptions.

So the correct answer is Anjali is the most likely suspect because the code was used and she has a direct link to the physical evidence.

Answer 13

To be guilty, Chitra needed the physical chance to be at the museum during the crime, that's what a necessary condition means here.

Knowing the code isn't shown as something she needed, and saying she left the studio before 11{:}45 PM doesn't even make sense since that's the fixed time the camera already recorded. Teaming up with Anjali is never mentioned anywhere in the passage.

What actually has to be true is that the theft happened in the window she could reach the museum in, that is, sometime after leaving the studio, plus the drive, and before the guard's 1{:}00 AM final round.
Without that overlap in timing, she couldn't have been the one who did it, which makes it the necessary condition.

Answer 14

One way to spot a true necessary condition is to flip each option to its opposite and see if that opposite would make Chitra's guilt impossible.

1. She must know the five digit code: Flipped, "she does not know the code," nothing in the passage says this would rule out her guilt, since other ways of opening the case aren't excluded for her specifically. Guilt doesn't collapse just from this flip.
2. She must have left the studio before 11{:}45 PM: This one can't even be sensibly flipped since the 11{:}45 PM exit time is a settled fact from the footage, not something that varies with her guilt or innocence.
3. The theft occurred after she left the studio and before 1{:}00 AM: Flipped, "the theft did not occur in that window," this would indeed make her guilt impossible, since she would have had no window of opportunity to be at the museum at all. The flip breaking her guilt is exactly what makes the original statement necessary.
4. She must have worked with Anjali: Flipping this to "she did not work with Anjali" doesn't affect whether Chitra alone could have committed the theft, so this isn't a necessary condition either.

Only flipping the timing statement actually destroys the possibility of her guilt, which is what confirms it as the necessary condition.

So the correct answer is the theft must have occurred after she left the studio and before 1{:}00 AM.