Assume each friend (P, Q, R) is a knight, knave, or spy. Knights always tell the truth (statement is true), knaves always lie (statement is false), and spies make statements that can be true or false. Analyze the statements:
- Statement (i): "If P is a knight, then Q is a knave." (P → ¬Q)
- Statement (ii): "If Q is a knight, then R is a knave." (Q → ¬R)
- Statement (iii): "If R is a knight, then P is a knave." (R → ¬P)
Test Q as a knight (Q = Knight, statement must be true):
- Statement (i): "If P is a knight, then Q is a knave."
Since Q is a knight (not a knave), the conclusion is false. For the implication to be true, the antecedent must be false. So, P is not a knight → P is either a knave or a spy. - Statement (ii): "If Q is a knight, then R is a knave."
Q is a knight, so this must be true. That means R is a knave. - Statement (iii): "If R is a knight, then P is a knave."
R is a knave (not a knight), so the antecedent is false. A false antecedent makes the implication true, so the statement holds regardless of P.
Now we have:
- Q = Knight
- R = Knave
- P ≠ Knight, ≠ Knave → P must be the Spy
Verification:
- P (Spy): Statement (i) is false (P is not a knight), which a spy may say.
- Q (Knight): Statement (ii) is true (Q is a knight, R is a knave), which a knight must say.
- R (Knave): Statement (iii) is false (R is not a knight), which fits a knave's nature.
Thus, the only consistent scenario is:
- P = Spy
- Q = Knight
- R = Knave
Correct answer: Q