On the night of October 12th, the ”Sunburst Medallion” was stolen from the highly secured display case in the city museum. The theft occurred sometime between the museum closing at 10:00 PM and the night guard, Mr. Hemant, completing his final round at 1:00 AM. Three primary suspects were identified, all of whom had recently been dismissed from their museum positions: Anjali, the former curator; Bharat, the former security expert; and Chitra, the former exhibits designer.
Here are the established facts and their alibis:
• The security system logs show that the display case was opened using a specific five-digit code, which only Anjali and the museum director (who was out of the country) knew.
• Bharat’s alibi is that he was at a distant relative’s birthday party from 8:00 PM to 1:30 AM. Multiple independent witnesses confirmed his presence throughout the entire period.
• Chitra’s alibi is that she was working late at a downtown graphic design studio. A timestamped security camera from the studio’s entrance shows her entering at 7:00 PM and exiting at 11:45 PM. The studio is a 20-minute drive from the museum.
• Mr. Hemant, the night guard, stated he checked the medallion at 10:30 PM, and it was still there.
• Further investigation revealed that a small, distinctive silver button was found near the display case. Anjali is known to frequently wear a coat with similar unique silver buttons. The security expert, Bharat, had previously boasted that he could remotely disable a
certain type of magnetic lock-the same type used on the medallion’s case-without needing the code, though the log suggests the code was used. (269 words)
Drawing a Strongest Conclusion
Considering all the facts (the code being used, the silver button, and the confirmed alibis), which is the most reasonable inference?
Correct Answer :
Anjali is the most likely suspect because the code was used and she has a direct link to the physical evidence (the button)
Solution :
To determine the most reasonable inference, let us analyze the established facts, evidence, and alibis step-by-step:
1. Time Window of the Theft:
The theft occurred between 10:00 PM (museum closing) and 1:00 AM. Mr. Hemant confirmed the medallion was still present at 10:30 PM, narrowing the actual timeframe of the crime to between 10:30 PM and 1:00 AM.
2. Evaluation of Suspects and Alibis:
• Bharat: He was at a party from 8:00 PM to 1:30 AM, supported by multiple independent witnesses. His alibi completely covers the entire window of the theft (10:30 PM to 1:00 AM). Furthermore, the lock was opened using a five-digit code rather than being remotely bypassed, which contradicts his known method.
• Chitra: She was at a graphic design studio until 11:45 PM. Since the museum is a 20-minute drive away, she could only arrive at the museum by around 12:05 AM at the earliest. While physically possible to be at the scene in the final hour, there is no evidence linking her to the five-digit code or physical artifacts at the crime scene.
• Anjali: The security logs explicitly state that the display case was opened using a five-digit code, which only Anjali and the director (who was abroad) knew. In addition, physical evidence in the form of a distinctive silver button matching those on Anjali's coat was recovered directly next to the display case.
Conclusion:
Combining the key facts—that the secret five-digit code known exclusively to Anjali was used, and that physical evidence matching her clothing was found at the scene of the crime—Anjali is clearly the most likely suspect.
Therefore, 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 (the button)
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
