Teaser Tuesday! May 27, 2014

Here's a spin on a classic, hope you all enjoy it!

Note: If you could all please input your answers using the previously noted html code it will allow others to answer without having a spoiler. Also, in your answer, do not include any ' or " or it will not work properly.

Question

This is the story of three unhappy people: Angelica, Bernardo, and Cameron. Angelica and Cameron have been friends since childhood. Cameron is hopelessly in love with Angelica, but Angelica has always thought of Cameron as "just a friend".

During high school, a new boy, Bernardo, moves into the area. Bernardo immediately catches the attention of Angelica, who falls head-over-heels for him. However, Bernardo is not interested in women and he is strongly attracted to Cameron. Cameron, of course, is jealous of Bernardo, because he has stolen Angelica's love away. Angelica is angry at Cameron, because she feels that Bernardo's lack of attention to her is Cameron's fault. Bernardo is jealous of Angelica, who recieves all of Cameron's attention.

One day, you meet them, all together in a chat room. They are all using nicknames: Uberkewl, Vaxxipaxx, and Derpyderp (in no particular order). Because they are so jealous and screwed-up, each of them will answer a question truthfully if and only if:

1) One of your last two questions was to their sweetheart.
2) Your last question wasn't to the person with whom they are upset.

Otherwise, they will answer spitefully by giving you the answer that will confuse you the most. Your task is to figure out who is who. Is it possible? If so, how many questions might you have to ask?

Good luck!

4 Comments
 
Best Response

There are multiple ways of solving this:

No matter what, Policy 1 is moot for this strategy: if you ask all three the same question, one of the last two will always be a sweetheart of the third to last. Policy 2 can be tricky:

Name Game: Ask the last letter of their first name:as they all end in different letters. Each user will truthfully give the letter (without a doubt the first user has to be truthful as no policy goes into effect until after the next two). In realistic terms, the chat room setting will cause all of them to answer you at the same time if no noted by the example.

Moreover, this overcomes Policy 2:

Let's say the first user says his letter is "O" (Making him Bernardo). Now Policy 2 breaks down:

-If Angelica is the second person (you already know the third by now from being the remainder), you can ask the last question to Cameron to keep Bernardo happy (as it will not end on someone he hates).

-If the second person is Cameron, you do not need to ask Angelica anything (you already know she is the last one remaining, there is no need to upset Bernardo)

This cycle works for any one who goes first. To answer you question on the number of questions asked, it is either two or three.

 

Your HTML code doesn't work.

2 questions.

Your first two questions will be met with dishonest answers, since there's no way it will satisfy the qualifications listed above.

Pick any chat participant at random and ask them: 1. Who are you not? The person they name will be themselves.

  1. Out of the other 2 chat participants, who is the object of your affection? The person they don't name will be the person they are actually attracted to, making the person they name the other user.

Mission accomplished.

 

You've got to be kidding me with that 'better answer'. @"WallStreetOasis.com" that can't be allowed..

This to all my hatin' folks seeing me getting guac right now..
 

Facilis vitae itaque maiores enim. Nihil velit et veritatis et repellat. Velit recusandae porro quasi repellendus maiores sed.

Aliquid quod et aut nisi. Non ipsum nemo ut tempore ab debitis laudantium. Laudantium neque consequatur ea porro. Dolor sunt quia mollitia rerum ipsam.

Aut quisquam voluptatum et illum ipsa enim. Maiores voluptatem et suscipit nam recusandae sed. Error autem dolorem modi necessitatibus repellendus amet consequuntur. Facilis voluptatem magnam natus et placeat quis. Ipsum minus voluptatem rerum beatae ab vel soluta.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.3%
  • JPMorgan No 97.7%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (14) $434
  • Associates (44) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (78) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
10
Linda Abraham's picture
Linda Abraham
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”