Two more Alibi cases, drafts for review
Open Questions (2)
One per case, at the end of each case below. They block promoting the case to playable, nothing else.
AL-015 · The Halden Sale
Did the museum director know the Halden panel was fake when she let it sell?
On Friday night the Merrow Museum sold the Halden panel at auction for $4.2 million. On Monday a lab found modern pigment in it. The buyer wants to know whether the museum knew. Irene Whitlock, the director, has agreed to sit down.
Irene Whitlock, Museum director (she).
The account
- I never got any warning about that panel.
- The registrar told me the panel was clean.
- I'd have stopped the sale if anyone had asked me to.
- The sale went ahead at eight, like every other lot.
- Nobody at the auction raised a single concern.
- I've never sold a piece I had doubts about.
Round 1 · Inferences · BREAKS HER STORY
Line 1: “I never got any warning about that panel.”
Thursday 4:12 p.m. Forwarded by I. Whitlock to R. Okonjo, registrar.
Note: "Please determine whether this warrants delaying the sale."
Attached: one unsigned letter questioning the ownership history of the Halden panel.
Which choice is best supported by the text?
- A. Irene Whitlock believed the Halden panel was a forgery. — scope · The Embellisher
- B. Irene Whitlock received a letter questioning the Halden panel and sent it to the registrar. — correct
- C. The unsigned letter proved that the Halden panel's ownership history was false. — extreme · The Absolutist
- D. The registrar delayed the sale of the Halden panel. — distort · The Half-Truth
| Reply if held | “A letter with no name on it. I get three a month.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | The memo, marked: she forwarded a letter about the panel on Thursday afternoon. |
| Line becomes | broken · She forwarded a letter questioning the panel on Thursday. |
| New detail | The letter about the panel came unsigned. |
Round 2 · Command of Evidence · BREAKS HER STORY
Line 2: “The registrar told me the panel was clean.”
Irene. I have not completed the pigment review, and the final comparison will take longer than tonight. The frame and backing match the 1998 condition report. The catalog photographs came out well. Please keep this between us until I'm done.
Which quotation from the message most effectively supports the claim that the registrar had not cleared the panel when she wrote?
- A. "The catalog photographs came out well." — irrel · The Professor
- B. "I have not completed the pigment review, and the final comparison will take longer than tonight." — correct
- C. "The frame and backing match the 1998 condition report." — herring · The Red Herring
- D. "Please keep this between us until I'm done." — herring · The Red Herring
| Reply if held | “She said the frame was right. I heard the part I wanted.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | The registrar's message, marked: the pigment review was not done when she wrote. |
| Line becomes | broken · Ruth Okonjo wrote at 5:40 that the pigment review was not done. |
Round 3 · Central Ideas and Details · FITS HER STORY
Line 4: “The sale went ahead at eight, like every other lot.”
Lot 31, the Halden panel. Scheduled 8:00 p.m.
Opened 8:00 p.m. at $2.5 million.
Seven bids: two in the room, five by phone.
Hammer 8:06 p.m. at $4.2 million.
Lots 30 and 32 sold at 7:52 p.m. and 8:11 p.m.
Which choice best states the main idea of the report?
- A. Every lot at the auction sold for more than its opening bid. — general · The Generalizer
- B. Irene Whitlock watched the Halden panel sell from the room. — scope · The Embellisher
- C. Lot 31 opened at its scheduled time and sold after seven bids, between the lots on either side of it. — correct
- D. The Halden panel sold for less than it was worth. — reverse · The Contrarian
| Reply if held | “Eight o'clock. Same as the catalog said.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | The auction report: lot 31 opened on schedule at 8:00 and sold at 8:06. |
| Line becomes | holds · Lot 31 opened on schedule and sold at 8:06. |
Round 4 · Cross-Text Connections · BREAKS HER STORY
Line 3: “I'd have stopped the sale if anyone had asked me to.”
Unsigned letter, received Thursday: Before you sell the Halden panel, check its pigments. Its ownership history has a six-year gap, from 1961 to 1967, and nobody has explained it.
Hal Brennan, head of conservation, to the director, Friday 2:00 p.m.: I'd pull lot 31 until Ruth's pigment review is back. A week's delay won't lose us the buyer.
Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?
- A. The sale of the Halden panel should wait until its pigments are checked. — correct
- B. The Halden panel is a forgery. — scope · The Embellisher
- C. The gap in the panel's ownership history has been explained. — reverse · The Contrarian
- D. The Halden panel should never be sold. — distort · The Half-Truth
| Reply if held | “Hal said a week. The buyer said Friday. I picked Friday.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | Hal Brennan, later: "I asked her to pull lot 31. She said the buyer wouldn't wait." |
| Line becomes | broken · Two people asked her to hold the panel before the sale. |
| New detail | Hal Brennan, the conservator, asked her on Friday to pull lot 31. |
Round 5 · Rhetorical Synthesis · FITS HER STORY
Line 5: “Nobody at the auction raised a single concern.”
While looking into the auction itself, an investigator took these notes:
• The auction house records every announcement from the rostrum in its report.
• The report for lot 31 lists no announcements.
• Floor staff logged no questions from bidders about lot 31.
• Ruth Okonjo's preliminary notes reached the director's phone at 6:34 p.m., before the auction began.
The investigator wants to show that no concern about the panel was raised during the auction itself. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
- A. Ruth Okonjo's preliminary notes reached the director's phone at 6:34 p.m. — shuffle · The Shuffler
- B. The auction house records every announcement made from the rostrum. — mirror · Echo
- C. The report for lot 31 lists no rostrum announcements, and floor staff logged no bidder questions about it. — correct
- D. No one anywhere had any concern about lot 31 before it sold. — extreme · The Absolutist
| Reply if held | “Nobody in that room said a word. Ask them.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | Floor staff, later: not one question about lot 31 all night. |
| Line becomes | holds · No announcement or bidder question was logged for lot 31. |
| New detail | Ruth Okonjo's preliminary notes reached Irene's phone at 6:34 p.m. |
Round 6 · Inferences · BREAKS HER STORY
Line 6: “I've never sold a piece I had doubts about.”
6:34 p.m. R. Okonjo to I. Whitlock: "Preliminary notes attached. Two pigment samples are not consistent with the panel's claimed date. I need the full comparison to be sure."
Read 6:41 p.m.
6:44 p.m. I. Whitlock to R. Okonjo: "Understood. Proceeding."
Which choice is best supported by the text?
- A. Irene Whitlock knew the Halden panel was a forgery when it sold. — scope · The Embellisher
- B. Before the auction, Irene Whitlock had read that two samples did not fit the panel's claimed date. — correct
- C. The pigment samples proved the panel was painted in modern times. — extreme · The Absolutist
- D. Irene Whitlock did not read the registrar's notes until after the sale. — reverse · The Contrarian
| Reply if held | “Not consistent isn't fake. I needed fake.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | The phone record, marked: she read the notes at 6:41 and wrote "Proceeding." |
| Line becomes | broken · She read about the two samples at 6:41 and wrote "Proceeding." |
The finding
- Irene Whitlock let the Halden panel sell after reading that two pigment samples did not fit its date, and the file does not show she knew it was fake. — fits the file
- Irene Whitlock knowingly sold a forgery. — wrong
- Ruth Okonjo cleared the panel for sale, and the director acted on her advice. — wrong
- The file shows nothing the director could have known before the sale. — wrong
WHAT THE FILE CAN'T TELL YOU
The file shows what she read and that she sold the panel anyway. None of these papers shows what she believed.
AL-016 · Fourteen Seconds
Did the hotel's security chief leave the east corridor open to a thief on purpose?
Just after midnight on Saturday, a guest's jewelry case was taken from Room 412 at the Hotel Carlisle. The east-corridor camera shows the hallway before and after, and nothing for fourteen seconds in between. Leon Garrity, the chief of security, has agreed to sit down.
Leon Garrity, Chief of security, Hotel Carlisle (he).
The account
- That camera was working fine until the night of the theft.
- I did everything I could once I knew about it.
- The new camera was on its way.
- Nobody on my staff touched that camera.
- My guards were on the fourth floor all night.
- I had nothing to do with that theft.
Round 1 · Inferences · BREAKS HIS STORY
Line 1: “That camera was working fine until the night of the theft.”
Opened Tuesday 9:15 a.m. by J. Ruiz, technician.
East-corridor camera, fourth floor: signal drops for 10 to 20 seconds, several times an hour.
Likely cause: failing power supply.
Status: replacement ordered.
Which choice is best supported by the text?
- A. Someone tampered with the east-corridor camera on Tuesday. — scope · The Embellisher
- B. The east-corridor camera had been losing its signal since at least Tuesday. — correct
- C. The east-corridor camera recorded nothing at all after Tuesday. — extreme · The Absolutist
- D. The technician repaired the camera's power supply on Tuesday. — distort · The Half-Truth
| Reply if held | “Tuesday. So it was sick a few days. Cameras get sick.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | The ticket, marked: the camera was dropping out from Tuesday on. |
| Line becomes | broken · The camera had been dropping out since at least Tuesday. |
| New detail | The technician blamed a failing power supply. |
Round 2 · Command of Evidence · FITS HIS STORY
Line 2: “I did everything I could once I knew about it.”
Team, Ruiz reports that the east-corridor camera on four is dropping out. Until the replacement arrives, add a walk of the fourth-floor east corridor to every round, and log each pass. The lobby and elevator cameras are unaffected. Please keep this off the guest-facing channels.
Which quotation from the email most effectively supports the claim that the security chief took steps to cover the camera's gaps?
- A. "Ruiz reports that the east-corridor camera on four is dropping out." — mirror · Echo
- B. "Until the replacement arrives, add a walk of the fourth-floor east corridor to every round, and log each pass." — correct
- C. "The lobby and elevator cameras are unaffected." — irrel · The Professor
- D. "Please keep this off the guest-facing channels." — herring · The Red Herring
| Reply if held | “Extra walks, every round. Read the logs.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | The email, marked: he ordered a logged walk of the corridor on every round. |
| Line becomes | holds · He ordered a logged walk of the corridor on every round. |
Round 3 · Central Ideas and Details · FITS HIS STORY
Line 3: “The new camera was on its way.”
One camera, model DX-4, for the Hotel Carlisle. Ordered Tuesday. Shipped Wednesday from the regional warehouse. Delivery moved from Friday to Monday because of a carrier delay. We regret the inconvenience.
Which choice best states the main idea of the notice?
- A. The replacement camera was ordered and shipped, but its delivery slipped from Friday to Monday. — correct
- B. The replacement camera arrived on Friday, before the theft. — shuffle · The Shuffler
- C. The vendor never meant to deliver the camera. — extreme · The Absolutist
- D. Deliveries from this vendor are always late. — general · The Generalizer
| Reply if held | “Monday. Two days late. That was my week.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | The vendor notice: the camera shipped Wednesday and was held up to Monday. |
| Line becomes | holds · Ordered Tuesday, shipped Wednesday, delayed to Monday. |
Round 4 · Rhetorical Synthesis · FITS HIS STORY
Line 4: “Nobody on my staff touched that camera.”
While looking into the camera, an investigator took these notes:
• The camera dropped out for 14 seconds at 12:07 a.m. Sunday.
• Ruiz inspected the camera on Monday, when the replacement arrived.
• He found a worn-out power supply. The casing seals were intact, and nothing had been cut or rewired.
• The camera had dropped out 41 times between Tuesday and Saturday night.
The investigator wants to show that the camera failed on its own and was not tampered with. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
- A. The camera dropped out for 14 seconds at 12:07 a.m. Sunday. — irrel · The Professor
- B. Ruiz found a worn-out power supply with the seals intact and nothing cut or rewired, and the camera had dropped out 41 times before the theft. — correct
- C. Ruiz inspected the camera on Monday, before it dropped out at 12:07 a.m. — shuffle · The Shuffler
- D. No one could ever tamper with a camera like this one. — extreme · The Absolutist
| Reply if held | “Worn out. Like I said, nobody touched it.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | Ruiz, later: a tired power supply, seals intact, nothing cut. |
| Line becomes | holds · Ruiz found wear and no sign of tampering. |
Round 5 · Cross-Text Connections · BREAKS HIS STORY
Line 5: “My guards were on the fourth floor all night.”
Guard's round log, B. Adeyemi. Fourth-floor east corridor walked at 9:00 p.m., 10:00 p.m., 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
Front desk note: At 11:40 p.m. the fourth-floor guard was called down to the lobby for a noise complaint. He stayed until about 12:35 a.m. No one covered the fourth floor while he was away.
Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?
- A. The guard left the fourth floor so that the theft could happen. — scope · The Embellisher
- B. The fourth floor was covered for the whole night. — reverse · The Contrarian
- C. No guard walked the fourth-floor east corridor at midnight. — correct
- D. The guard went down to the lobby after his 1:00 a.m. walk. — shuffle · The Shuffler
| Reply if held | “A noise complaint. He went where the desk sent him.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | Front desk, later: the guard was in the lobby from 11:40 to about 12:35. |
| Line becomes | broken · The guard was in the lobby from 11:40 to about 12:35. |
| New detail | The front desk sent the fourth-floor guard to the lobby at 11:40. |
Round 6 · Inferences · BREAKS HIS STORY
Line 2: “I did everything I could once I knew about it.”
On Friday I offered Leon a second guard for the weekend, paid out of my budget. He said the walks would cover it and the part would be in on Monday. I didn't push. On Saturday our only fourth-floor guard was the one the desk called down.
Which choice is best supported by the text?
- A. Leon Garrity wanted the fourth floor left without a guard on Saturday. — scope · The Embellisher
- B. Leon Garrity turned down a second weekend guard that the night manager offered. — correct
- C. The night manager refused to pay for a second guard. — reverse · The Contrarian
- D. Leon Garrity turns down every offer of extra staff. — general · The Generalizer
| Reply if held | “One more guard for one more weekend. I thought the walks would do.” |
|---|---|
| Flat, if missed | Carla Benning, later: "I offered him a second guard. He said no." |
| Line becomes | narrowed · He turned down a second guard for the weekend. |
The finding
- Leon Garrity knew the camera was failing and turned down a second guard, and the file does not show he meant the corridor to go unwatched. — fits the file
- Leon Garrity left the east corridor open so the thief could reach Room 412. — wrong
- The guard, B. Adeyemi, left his post so the theft could happen. — wrong
- The file shows Leon Garrity did everything he could. — wrong
WHAT THE FILE CAN'T TELL YOU
The file shows a failing camera, a missed walk and a refused guard. None of these papers shows that anyone planned the gap.