so whoever came in must have

Kili

Member
Turkish-İZMİR
………,so whoever came in must have found out the code

a-The lock apperantly not being broken
b-The door was broken down
c-Only the sectratary knows the combination of the lock
d-He would rather just have knocked
e-Policeman barely managed to arrive in time


I'm stuck between "B" and "C". What do you suggest? Thank you
 
  • Orange Blossom

    Senior Member
    U.S.A. English
    Hi Kili,

    I'm not going to provide the answer at this time, but rather I am going to do some interpretation and ask a question which I hope will lead you to the correct answer.

    …,so whoever came in must have found out the code
    Whoever came in <-- the identity of the person who came in is unknown

    must have found out the code <-- found out suggests that whoever it was didn't know the code already.

    Now, imagine a door with a security pad next to it. In order to get in, you need to enter a sequence of numbers, and possibly symbols or letters as well. This sequence is called a code.

    Okay, your sentence says that whoever it was must have "found out the code." What does that suggest about the condition of the door?

    Orange Blossom
     

    Kili

    Member
    Turkish-İZMİR
    Well, Orange Blossom
    It suggests to me "the door is broken", hence I go for "B". Because it is highly probable that the "code" is inside the house or somewhere in an enclave that someone broke into there to get the code.
     

    Orange Blossom

    Senior Member
    U.S.A. English
    Hi Kili,

    Unfortunately, no you are not correct. If the person found out the code, it means that he/she was able to enter by using the code which means that the door was not damaged. Because the door wasn't damaged, the investigators conclude that whoever it was knew the code to get in. :)

    Also, note the words "found out". Because the secretary already knows the code, she wouldn't need to find it out right? Consequently, whoever it was couldn't be the secretary.

    Does this make better sense now? Now what do you think the answer is?

    Orange Blossom
     

    Kili

    Member
    Turkish-İZMİR
    Hi Kili,

    I'm not going to provide the answer at this time, but rather I am going to do some interpretation and ask a question which I hope will lead you to the correct answer.

    Whoever came in <-- the identity of the person who came in is unknown

    must have found out the code <-- found out suggests that whoever it was didn't know the code already.

    Now, imagine a door with a security pad next to it. In order to get in, you need to enter a sequence of numbers, and possibly symbols or letters as well. This sequence is called a code.

    Okay, your sentence says that whoever it was must have "found out the code." What does that suggest about the condition of the door?

    Orange Blossom
    Hi Kili,

    Unfortunately, no you are not correct. If the person found out the code, it means that he/she was able to enter by using the code which means that the door was not damaged. Because the door wasn't damaged, the investigators conclude that whoever it was knew the code to get in. :)

    Also, note the words "found out". Because the secretary already knows the code, she wouldn't need to find it out right? Consequently, whoever it was couldn't be the secretary.

    Does this make better sense now? Now what do you think the answer is?

    Orange Blossom
    Yes Orange blossom I understand your point, however, "B" is not that much far from the truth considering the following plot:

    It is highly probable that the "code" is inside the house or somewhere in an enclave that someone broke into there pulling the door down to get the code or to steal it.

    What do you think? :)
     

    Kili

    Member
    Turkish-İZMİR
    No, the "code" is the sequence of signs that you type on a small keyboard, which allows you to open the door when it is locked. It's at the door, not inside the office.
    You might be right LV4,

    When I read "B" an image of paper on which the code numbers are inscribed flashed before my eyes and I thought someone broke into a house to take it.

    Apparently I've had too much fantasy ha? :)
     

    Orange Blossom

    Senior Member
    U.S.A. English
    It is highly probable that the "code" is inside the house or somewhere in an enclave that someone broke into there pulling the door down to get the code or to steal it.
    In the given scenario you have just painted, the broken door does make sense if 'the code' was the object of the theft. Perhaps a code that is stored in a written form somewhere that provides entry to a more secure installation. However, the answer choices strongly suggest that this isn't the situation. Generally speaking, people don't break into a place to 'find a code'. They use other means to discover it, otherwise they won't have any use for the code because either they would be caught before they used it or because the security of the place would be increased preventing his/her entering a second time. The code is used to get into a place. And why wouldn't they steal whatever they wanted to begin with rather than go through the effort to break in just to steal a code that would let them get into the same place without breaking the door or lock? That doesn't make any sense especially since the locks, doors, and codes would be changed after the very noticable forced entrance.

    Orange Blossom
     

    Kili

    Member
    Turkish-İZMİR
    In the given scenario you have just painted, the broken door does make sense if 'the code' was the object of the theft. Perhaps a code that is stored in a written form somewhere that provides entry to a more secure installation. However, the answer choices strongly suggest that this isn't the situation. Generally speaking, people don't break into a place to 'find a code'. They use other means to discover it, otherwise they won't have any use for the code because either they would be caught before they used it or because the security of the place would be increased preventing his/her entering a second time. The code is used to get into a place. And why wouldn't they steal whatever they wanted to begin with rather than go through the effort to break in just to steal a code that would let them get into the same place without breaking the door or lock? That doesn't make any sense especially since the locks, doors, and codes would be changed after the very noticable forced entrance.

    Orange Blossom

    Excellent comment!

    Thanks Orange blossom.
     

    JazzByChas

    Senior Member
    American English
    I would agree...the code is on a small keyboard (or keypad) typically next to or in very close proximity to the door. I believe this simply means that the person who entered the door simply figured out the code. I don't think the door was broken down. The police would only respond if someone called them suspecting an infiltrator. In this case, the perpetrator was either a "hacker" just doing it for "jollies" or a thief or criminal seeking illegal entry, or somone who actually has access to the space, and forgot the code for entry.

    No, the "code" is the sequence of signs that you type on a small keyboard. Entering it automatically unlocks the door. It's at the door, not inside the office.
     

    panjandrum

    Lapsed Moderator
    English-Ireland (top end)
    Interesting discussion, but my first response is that either Kili has transcribed the question wrongly or there is no correct answer. Look carefully at the five possible sentences, taking on board the comments so far and assuming that this is a door with a code-operated lock.

    (a) The lock apparently not being broken, so whoever came in must have found out the code.
    Faulty grammatical construction, but perhaps correct if you delete so.

    (b) The door was broken down, so whoever came in must have found out the code.
    Faulty logic.

    (c) Only the secretary knows the combination of the lock, so whoever came in must have found out the code.
    Faulty logic, or incomplete information.

    (d) He would rather just have knocked, so whoever came in must have found out the code.
    Non sequitur.

    (e) Policeman barely managed to arrive in time, so whoever came in must have found out the code.
    Ungrammatical and non sequitur.

    I conclude, pro tem, that there is a transcription mistake, the second part of the sentence should not have so at the beginning, and that (a) is correct.
     

    AWordLover

    Senior Member
    USA English
    ………,so whoever came in must have found out the code

    a-The lock apperantly not being broken
    b-The door was broken down
    c-Only the sectratary knows the combination of the lock
    d-He would rather just have knocked
    e-Policeman barely managed to arrive in time

    I'm stuck between "B" and "C". What do you suggest? Thank you
    Hi All,

    I don't like this question. Do you think that the phrase following the letter must replace the ....... to form the beginning of start of the correct sentence. Or, do you think the correct answer can be <phrase following lettered choices> ....., so whoever came in must have found out the code.

    I would have thought the first is the way this quiz works, and then I'm not wild about any of the answers.

    EDIT: My post crossed with Panj's. An alternate error could be fixed by changing C to:
    c-Only the sectratary knew the combination of the lock
     

    LV4-26

    Senior Member
    Good point, Panj. Actually, I've so far taken the beginning not to be the beginning (despite the capital T). In other words, I thought the full sentence read something like
    The burglars seem to have entered without any difficulty, the lock apparently not being broken , so whoever........
    But I guess I was just uncounsciously trying to make my choice fit. :)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top