Boost your IQ with these brain-boosting exercises

Situation

A critical contract has gone missing in a prominent company. The document was last seen in the Director's office and was essential for securing a major deal. Four employees had access to the office during the time the contract disappeared:

1. Anna (Executive Assistant)

   • Responsible for organizing files.

   • Claimed she was in the office briefly to drop off reports.

2. Mark (Sales Manager)

   • Scheduled a meeting with the Director that same afternoon.

   • Claims he never entered the office because the meeting was postponed.

3. Sophia (Marketing Specialist)

   • Tasked with delivering a promotional booklet to the Director.

   • States she left the booklet on the office desk but noticed the contract while there.

4. John (IT Technician)

   • Called to the office to fix the Director's computer.

   • Said he worked on the computer but did not touch any documents.

Key Observations

• The office door was unlocked all day.

• Security cameras are temporarily out of service for maintenance.

• A cleaner found the Director's trash bin unusually full of shredded paper.

• A witness overheard one of the employees muttering about "problems with the contract" before the disappearance.

Task

The Director needs Holmes to determine:

• Who took the contract, and why?

• How the culprit’s statements or actions contradict the evidence?

Can Holmes unravel the truth?

Answer below (but think sometime).

Solution to the Missing Contract Case

Culprit: Sophia (Marketing Specialist)

Step-by-Step Explanation

1. Examine Statements for Contradictions:

   • Anna: Claimed she only dropped off reports. Her role as an Executive Assistant aligns with this, and there's no mention of her interacting with the contract. No red flags.

   • Mark: Stated his meeting was postponed, so he didn’t enter the office. No evidence contradicts this.

   • Sophia: Claimed she noticed the contract while leaving a booklet. This implies she was near the document, making her a suspect.

   • John: Was fixing the computer and stated he didn’t touch documents. His role doesn’t naturally involve handling papers, so his claim appears credible.

2. Analyze Key Observations:

   • Unlocked Office: All employees had access, which doesn’t directly point to anyone but increases suspicion toward those with inconsistent stories.

   • Shredded Paper in Trash: Suggests someone tried to destroy the contract. This indicates intent, likely by someone who viewed the document as problematic.

   • Witness Report: Someone muttered about "problems with the contract." This indicates motive—someone unhappy with the contract may have removed it.

3. Cross-reference Statements with Motive:

   • Anna: No motive provided. She’s likely telling the truth.

   • Mark: If his meeting was postponed, he wouldn’t have a chance to act. No motive or access.

   • Sophia: As a Marketing Specialist, she may have had professional concerns about the contract, aligning with the muttered comment.

   • John: No motive provided, and his focus was the computer, not documents.

4. Key Contradiction in Sophia's Statement:

   
   

   Sophia claimed she "noticed the contract" while delivering the booklet. If she only dropped off the booklet, she wouldn’t have time or reason to examine the contract. Her noticing it indicates she paid undue attention to it.

5. Logical Conclusion:

   • Sophia likely viewed the contract, realized it posed a problem (e.g., clashing with her marketing plans), and decided to eliminate it.

   • She shredded the document to avoid detection, assuming the unlocked door and lack of cameras would obscure her actions.

Final Answer:

Sophia is the culprit. Her statement about noticing the contract, combined with her potential motive and the shredded paper, point directly to her involvement.

How's your brain? Are you ready to take an IQ test to test your strength?