So that's why... [Rabrab} Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - August 2006 » So that's why... [Rabrab} « Previous Next »

Author Message
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 6:42 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

A court case revealed why their success rate had dropped precipitiously. So they went and played frisbee.
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 8:15 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Court case in the usual sense? A civil case? Or criminal case?

They = adult? human?

If so, were they the defendants in the case? Were they present in the courtroom?

Success rate = financial? academic? other?

True story? Set in the USA?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 4:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Woodworm, July 23, 2006 - 8:15 am

Court case in the usual sense?b{yes} A civil case? {no} Or criminal case? this one

They = adult? Yes human? Yope

If so, were they the defendants in the case? No. Were they present in the courtroom? Some might have been, but not necessarily.

Success rate = financial? academic? other? other

True story? Yes Set in the USA? I honestly don't remember, but most likely yes.
Kitral Solane (Solane)
Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 11:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did frisbee help their sucsess rate? Or they just don't care?
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 11:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oooh: a yope! Is that because "they" refers to humans and other animals? Or because "they" are not entirely human (eg cyborgs)? Or because the "they" implied in the first sentence ("their success rate") is not the same "they" who played frisbee?

Are any dogs involved in the puzzle at all?

Or does "they" perhaps refer to a company? For example, a software company who came unstuck in their normal line of work, found themselves on the wrong side of a criminal case, and then diversified into virtual beach games instead?

Does "Frisbee" refer to the normal circular plastic object, or the game played therewith? Or to something different? Something metaphorical perhaps?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 11:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Solane July 23, 2006 - 11:07 pm

Did frisbee help their success rate? no Or they just don't care? not exactly, but much closer to this.
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
Posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 11:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Woodworm July 23, 2006 - 11:16 pm

Oooh: a yope! Is that because "they" refers to humans and other animals? Yes, Or because "they" are not entirely human (eg cyborgs)? no, Or because the "they" implied in the first sentence ("their success rate") is not the same "they" who played frisbee? and yes-ish.

Are any dogs involved in the puzzle at all? Why, Yes. Good shot

Or does "they" perhaps refer to a company? No. For example, a software company who came unstuck in their normal line of work, found themselves on the wrong side of a criminal case, and then diversified into virtual beach games instead? <giggle> No.

Does "Frisbee" refer to the normal circular plastic object, or the game played therewith? Both Or to something different? Something metaphorical perhaps? so, no.
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 308
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 6:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

A criminal case. OK, so were the defendants found guilty? Was the charge a serious (prisonworthy) offence? Murder? Fraud? Embezzlement? Violent crime? Theft? Other?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1259
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Woodworm July 25, 2006 - 6:41 pm:

A criminal case. Yeppers.
OK, so were the defendants found guilty? Probably not, but most of the details of the criminal case involved aren't really relevant, save for two. The relevant points are what the charge was, and how that case was tangentially related to what "They" did.

Was the charge a serious (prisonworthy) offence? Yes Murder? Fraud? Embezzlement? Violent crime? Theft? Other? Other.
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 309
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hmmmm .... let's fish for a few charges then. Perjury? Forgery? Treason? Rape? Riot? Bigamy? Arson? War crimes? Terrorism? Receiving stolen goods? Piracy? Conspiracy to pervert the thingummybob? Conspiracy to do any of the above? Drunk driving? Breach of the peace?

(Those might be all the crimes I know.)
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 310
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh I should add: were any dogs alleged to have been involved in any of the crimes? :-)
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1260
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Woodworm: July 25, 2006 - 8:23 pm:
Hmmmm .... let's fish for a few charges then. Fine by me Perjury? Forgery? Treason? Rape? Riot? Bigamy? Arson? War crimes? Terrorism? Receiving stolen goods? Piracy? Conspiracy to pervert the thingummybob? Conspiracy to do any of the above? Drunk driving? Breach of the peace? So sorry. None of those are relevant, although there may have been conspiracy charges as well...

(Those might be all the crimes I know.) Oh, I hope not. You've missed one whole set: the one you need.

Oh I should add: were any dogs alleged to have been involved in any of the crimes? No, but explore...
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robbery? Some kind of con trick? Murder?
...Dog-napping??
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 311
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Illegal immigration relevant at all?
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 312
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Smuggling! I missed smuggling.
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 22
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Not some kind of sexual misdemeanour involving animals?!?
Rebecca Kreisler (Beccaann)
New member
Username: Beccaann

Post Number: 128
Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Assault? Battery? Harrassment? Fraud? Burglary? Breaking and Entering?
Rick Evans (Lemon_martini2)
New member
Username: Lemon_martini2

Post Number: 28
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Some sort of inferior version of Frisbee being marketed?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1261
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 2:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Plebian, Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:01 pm
Robbery? Some kind of con trick? Murder?
...Dog-napping?? No to all.

Woodworm, Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:16 pm and Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:17 pm

Illegal immigration relevant at all? No.

Smuggling! I missed smuggling. Yes! Smuggling of a certain thing.

Plebian, Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:52 pm
Not some kind of sexual misdemeanour involving animals?! No.

Beccaann, Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 9:14 pm
Assault? Battery? Harrassment? Fraud? Burglary? Breaking and Entering? None of these.

Lemon Martini2, Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:54 am
Some sort of inferior version of Frisbee being marketed? No.
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 76
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 3:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So the subjects of the court case were involved in smuggling?
Smuggling of dogs?
Smuggling of something carried (externally? or internally) by dogs?
Smuggling of something which dogs need?
Smuggling of something which sniffer dogs detect, e.g. drugs?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1262
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Plebian, Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 3:26 pm


So the subjects of the court case were involved in smuggling? Indeed they were.
Smuggling of dogs? No,
Smuggling of something carried (externally? or internally) by dogs? not usually, no,
Smuggling of something which dogs need? no,
Smuggling of something which sniffer dogs detect, e.g. drugs? and YES!
Jared Donovan (Crashknight)
New member
Username: Crashknight

Post Number: 15
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So were the defendants charged with smuggling drugs?
Our 'they' a police officer and a police dog?
Their success rate= Their success rate in helping to convict smugglers?
Ok.. wild guess now: Did the court case show that the police dog was unfit to continue in that line of work so he retired and he and his policeman owner had more free time to play frisbee?
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 97
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Has it been established that they who play frisbee are a person and a dog? (if not, are they - one or more persons, one or more dogs, some combination of persons and dogs).
Were they actually involved in the criminal case? Or did the case bring something to light which caused the frisbee-related semi-retirment of canine?
Christiane Scharf (0815)
New member
Username: 0815

Post Number: 358
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did the court case reveal a new method of smuggling drugs? Did the smugglers invent a way to prevent the detection of their drugs by dogs?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1263
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Crashknight, Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:48 am

So were the defendants charged with smuggling drugs? the defendants in the court case, yes. That's one of the important bits. Now you need to figure out what the relationship of the court case is to "They".
Our 'they' a police officer and a police dog? Yes. Muliple policemen and their police dogs.
Their success rate= Their success rate in helping to convict smugglers? /b{Very very close, but not quite. It wasn't convictions that dropped...}

Ok.. wild guess now: Did the court case show that the police dog was unfit in a way... What way? to continue in that line of work so he retired and he and his policeman owner had more free time to play frisbee? May not have been with the policeman, but yes, the dog(s) were retired and played a lot more Frisbee as a result...

Plebian, Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:59 am
Has it been established that they who play frisbee are a person and a dog? It has been now but see next answer as well... (if not, are they - one or more persons, one or more dogs, This one: more than one dog. some combination of persons and dogs).

Were they actually involved in the criminal case? Good question!!!!! No. Or did the case bring something to light which caused the frisbee-related semi-retirment of canine? This is exactly it! Very good.

Christiane, Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:14 pm
Did the court case reveal a new method of smuggling drugs? Did the smugglers invent a way to prevent the detection of their drugs by dogs? Neither of these, sorry .
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 108
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was a smuggling method brought to light in the case which was shown to be difficult or impossible for sniffer dogs to detect, thereby meaning they were less useful for the work?
Like hiding drugs in containers of something which disguised the smell?
Or something which a particular breed of dog is less good at detecting?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1264
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Plebian, Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:58 pm
Was a smuggling method brought to light in the case which was shown to be difficult or impossible for sniffer dogs to detect, No, no new method of smuggling was involved. thereby meaning they were less useful for the work?
Like hiding drugs in containers of something which disguised the smell?
Or something which a particular breed of dog is less good at detecting?
The ability of the dogs to smell the drugs was involved, but tread carefully, this answer may mislead. Neither of these examples is right. Go to some more general questions...
Jared Donovan (Crashknight)
New member
Username: Crashknight

Post Number: 22
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

'Dropped'= Play on words?
'Precipitiously'= Play on words?
Any rain or water involved?
Did the police dogs retire because something in the court case revealed how the dogs' senses of smell had been damaged? or caused to be useless?
If so, was it discovered that their sense of smell deteriorated due to old age? Do to a reaction to certain drugs?
To certain substances?
Or was their ability to smell the drugs still intact but certain situations revealed in the court case indicated their help simply wasn't sufficient anymore?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1265
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 2:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Crashknight, Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:56 am

'Dropped'= Play on words? No.
'Precipitiously'= Play on words? No.
Any rain or water involved? No. But good thinking to check these!

Did the police dogs retire because something in the court case revealed how the dogs' senses of smell had been damaged? Not exactly, but you're going in very much the right direction...
or caused to be useless? This is even closer, for one sense of "useless".

If so, was it discovered that their sense of smell deteriorated due to old age? No.
Do to a reaction to certain drugs? Hmmmmmmm. Yes and no. A rephrase will give you a shot at a more helpful answer...
To certain substances? Same as previous answer. Sorry.
Or was their ability to smell the drugs still intact but certain situations revealed in the court case indicated their help simply wasn't sufficient anymore? Yes-ish, with a tiny -ish. Rephrase.
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 117
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 7:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is it correct to assume that the dogs which ended up playing frisbee were sniffer dogs? Which would in the past have been used in the detection of smuggled drugs? And that these dogs (these specific dogs? or sniffer dogs in general?) were now less useful in detecting drugs?
Would it be through de-sensitivity to the drugs? Or through boredom to detecting the same things over a long period? Or through advancing years?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1268
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Plebian, Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 7:51 pm
Is it correct to assume that the dogs which ended up playing frisbee were sniffer dogs? Yes, it is, and yes, they were.

Which would in the past have been used in the detection of smuggled drugs? That's what they were trained as, yes.

And that these dogs (these specific dogs? or sniffer dogs in general?) These specific dogs! Another good question.
were now less useful in detecting drugs? Yope and FA.

Would it be through de-sensitivity to the drugs? In a manner of speaking...
Or through boredom to detecting the same things over a long period? No.
Or through advancing years? No. In fact, they were young dogs.
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 121
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is it that these specific dogs were about to be used as sniffer dogs(? or would have continued to be used)?
But the nature of the case means these dogs wouldn't be as good? Or wouldn't be necessary since other means of detection would be better?
Is breed of dog relevant?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1269
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Plebian, Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:03 pm
Is it that these specific dogs were about to be used as sniffer dogs(? or would have continued to be used)? Would have continued to be used as sniffers.

But the nature of the case means these dogs wouldn't be as good? Nnnnnoooo, not really. It's not the nature of the case, as much as something else that connected the case and the dogs.

Or wouldn't be necessary since other means of detection would be better? No.

Is breed of dog relevant? No.
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 320
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did the dogs get stoned?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1270
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 2:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Woodworm, Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:17 am

Did the dogs get stoned? Good thought, but no.
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 128
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:47 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Were the dogs, although not specifically connected with this case, working as sniffer dogs at the time?
Were they actually less successful than they used to be? Was it known that they were less successful? Or did the police (customs people, etc) not know they were less successful until something was revealed in the case?
Some aspect of the case involving: -
the specific drugs being smuggled? (have we established it's drugs??)
The method of smuggling?
The location of the contraband?
The country of origin? Country of receipt?
The nationality of the smugglers?
Something about the smugglers?
Some action the smugglers took to lessen detection?
Something unintentional which meant the dogs were less efficient?
Some aspect of the dogs' training?
(um....)
Was the frisbeeing a kind of 'semi-retirement' for the dogs? Or a part of their training?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1273
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Plebian, Monday, July 31, 2006 - 10:47 am
Were the dogs, although not specifically connected with this case, working as sniffer dogs at the time? Yes.

Were they actually less successful than they used to be? The -dogs- weren't, no...

Was it known that they were less successful? The lack of success had been noted, yes.

Or did the police (customs people, etc) not know they were less successful until something was revealed in the case? No.

Rereading my answer of Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:25 pm, will help clear this point up...

Some aspect of the case involving: -
the specific drugs being smuggled? (have we established it's drugs??) We hadn't officially, but it is. And this one you want, of your list.
The method of smuggling? No
The location of the contraband? no
The country of origin? Country of receipt? neither
The nationality of the smugglers? No.
Something about the smugglers? no
Some action the smugglers took to lessen detection? no
Something unintentional which meant the dogs were less efficient? YOPE,
Some aspect of the dogs' training?
(um....) and this one.

Was the frisbeeing a kind of 'semi-retirement' for the dogs? Retirement activity, not semi-retirement. Or a part of their training? No.
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 147
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 11:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So the particular drugs being smuggled were less detectable by these dogs?
Were these dogs less likely to be able to detect the drugs than other trained sniffer dogs?
If you took one of these dogs, and another dog which was trained as a sniffer dog, but had never acted as one, would the new dog be more likley to detect the drugs?
Would the experienced dog be more likely to detect the drugs?
would both dogs be likely to be not-very-good detectors of these drugs?
Heroin?
Cannabis?
Ecstasy?
Other relevant drug?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1278
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 1:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Plebian, Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 11:07 am

So the particular drugs being smuggled were less detectable by these dogs? Yes. These dogs didn't detect this particular drug at all.

Were these dogs less likely to be able to detect the drugs than other trained sniffer dogs? Very definitely!

If you took one of these dogs, and another dog which was trained as a sniffer dog, but had never acted as one, would the new dog be more likley to detect the drugs? Which one are you referring to as 'the new one'? In any case, the one that was trained but had never done the job would almost cerainly do a better job than the dogs we're concerned with.

Would the experienced dog be more likely to detect the drugs? No.
would both dogs be likely to be not-very-good detectors of these drugs? No, the trained but never-done-it dog could be very good.
Heroin?
Cannabis?
Ecstasy? None of these.
Other relevant drug? Yes.
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 149
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 1:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

[Oh, I'm not very good with drugs, I'll have to look some up...]
The drugs are actually illegal in themselves, correct?
Or are they more 'standard' drugs such as aspirin or coffee, but the smuggling of them is illegal?
Would the trained but never-done-it dog eventually become as poor as the now-not-very-good-soon-to-be-frisbeeing dogs?
Does continued exposure to the drug affect the dogs?
Affect their sense of smell?
Affect their eyesight?
affect their bark?
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 327
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Cocaine? Barbiturates? Amphetamine?
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 328
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 2:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do the dogs suffer from some sort of nasal problem as a result of previous sniffings? (Rather like those celebrities who wreck their noses by snorting too much cocaine.) Are they allergic?

Were the dogs present in court? Did they perform sniffings in court?

I assume the old joke "My dog's got no nose" is not relevant here? :-)
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1279
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 6:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Plebian, Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 1:41 pm
[Oh, I'm not very good with drugs, I'll have to look some up...] no worries, Woodworm got it...
The drugs are actually illegal in themselves, correct? Yes.

Or are they more 'standard' drugs such as aspirin or coffee, but the smuggling of them is illegal? No. Illegal in and of itself.

Would the trained but never-done-it dog eventually become as poor as the now-not-very-good-soon-to-be-frisbeeing dogs? No! If was good at it, he'd stay good at it.

Does continued exposure to the drug affect the dogs? No.
Affect their sense of smell?
Affect their eyesight?
affect their bark? So, none of these.

Woodworm, Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 1:56 pm
Cocaine? This one! Barbiturates? Amphetamine? Neither of the others

Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 2:02 pm
Do the dogs suffer from some sort of nasal problem as a result of previous sniffings? (Rather like those celebrities who wreck their noses by snorting too much cocaine.) No to both the question and the example. Sorry. Are they allergic? No.

Were the dogs present in court? No! God question. Did they perform sniffings in court? And no.

I assume the old joke "My dog's got no nose" is not relevant here? Unfortunately, it's not really, no.
Kitral Solane (Solane)
New member
Username: Solane

Post Number: 314
Registered: 5-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 7:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is it the handlers'? trainers'? fault that the old dogs didn't sniff as well?
Were the defendants the smugglers? The policeman?
Was there sabotage to the dogs in training?
A new type of cocane that smelled differently?
Mike Holden (Plebeian)
New member
Username: Plebeian

Post Number: 155
Registered: 7-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 7:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, to recap and hopefully clarify slightly...
The sniffer dogs who in this scenario go off playing frisbee, are not present or involved in this particular smuggling case, but something comes to light about the drug itself (? or the methods used to smuggle cocain? Or this type of dog?) which explains why these dogs have been not very good at detecting the drugs?
Is the inference from the puzzle statement, that these particular dogs used to be better at detection than now, correct?
Or is the inference that a new type of dog is now used, which actually isn't very good at detecting cocaine?
Or some change to training methods means these dogs are not as good as before? Or that a new training method is better than a previous method used?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1280
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Saturday, August 05, 2006 - 10:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Solane, Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 7:45 pm
Is it the handlers'? trainers'? fault that the old dogs didn't sniff as well? Neither of these. It was someone's fault who was not directly involved with the training at all.

Were the defendants the smugglers? The policeman? Neither, and you know all that is relevant about the courtcase: It involved cocaine dealing/smuggling, and the defendants were probably acquitted. If you want to find out why they were acquitted, that might be helpful, but once you find out why the sniffer dogs were unsuccessful, you'll have a good idea why the defendants were acquitted.

Was there sabotage to the dogs in training? Yes-ish. It wasn't deliberately aimed at the dogs, though...

A new type of cocane that smelled differently? No, but you're OTRT.


Plebian, Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 7:51 pm
So, to recap and hopefully clarify slightly... fire away...

The sniffer dogs who in this scenario go off playing frisbee, are not present or involved in this particular smuggling case, Correct.
but something comes to light about the drug itself Yes.
(? or the methods used to smuggle cocain? No.
Or this type of dog?) No.
which explains why these dogs have been not very good at detecting the drugs? Correct.

Is the inference from the puzzle statement, that these particular dogs used to be better at detection than now, correct? No.

Or is the inference that a new type of dog is now used, which actually isn't very good at detecting cocaine? No.

Again, I point you to my answer to Crashnight, posted, Friday, July 28, 2006 - 9:25 pm. Read it carefully.

Or some change to training methods means these dogs are not as good as before? Yope. Or that a new training method is better than a previous method used? No.
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 337
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 2:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Let's try this idea: while the dogs are being trained to identify different drugs, someone either contaminates the cocaine or exchanges it for something else. So the handlers assume that the dogs are finding cocaine, where in fact they have been accidentally trained to sniff talcum powder? Something along these lines?
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1284
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 4:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Woodworm, Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 2:07 pm

Let's try this idea: while the dogs are being trained to identify different drugs, someone either contaminates the cocaine or exchanges it for something else. So the handlers assume that the dogs are finding cocaine, where in fact they have been accidentally trained to sniff talcum powder? Something along these lines? Not "along those lines." Exactly that!! Very good.

*************Spoiler**************

A few years ago, a police department was forced to retire an entire training class of drug-sniffing dogs when it was discovered that the "cocaine" that had been used to train them wasn't really cocaine at all.

The drugs had been checked out of the police department's own evidence locker for use in the training sessions, and had been checked back in properly after the sessions. However, when the trial of the alleged dealers that the coke was evidence in came up, and the cocaine was tested, it was found to be a mix of talcum powder and milk sugar. The officer in charge of the evidence locker had been stealing drugs from it and replacing them with look-alikes.

The discovery during the trial that the coke wasn't coke explained the sharp drop-off in the success rate of the sniffer teams, since the dogs weren't loking for cocaine, they were looking for talcum powder and milk sugar; and the dogs were retired and adopted out to families in the area, where they played a lot more frisbee.
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
New member
Username: Rabrab

Post Number: 1285
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 4:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Nice work Woodworm and Plebian, and able assists from Solane, Crashknight, and Christiane.

Thanks for a pleasant time.
Howard Wilde (Woodworm)
New member
Username: Woodworm

Post Number: 338
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 7:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Lovely puzzle, and rather topical for me. A couple of weeks ago I had my car searched by a sniffer dog on my way through customs (of course I am a clean-living worm and they found nothing).

He was very cute, and called Charlie, aptly enough. Good job I didn't have any talc with me.

:-)
Christiane Scharf (0815)
New member
Username: 0815

Post Number: 385
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 - 2:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Nice puzzle!

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: