# I Know A Word Of Letters Three, Add Two And Fewer There Will Be? Riddle: Check Logical Explanation for I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle Answer

Updated: Oct 13,2020 10:55 GMT

Shalini

I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle: I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle is a riddle that is trending on social media including Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp family groups. Check & Solve I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle is designed to test your thinking and Math Skill. Read the complete article to know the answer to I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle and Challenge your friends and family. Also solving Riddles or Puzzles tests your Brain and by challenging others you can also know their intelligence in solving the riddles.

## Test Your Skills on I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle

There are many types of riddles like math riddles, comic riddles, brainteasers, and puzzles. Many riddles can be found on the internet but they are sure to give your brain a workout. Riddles Challenge You to Solve These Hard Riddles that are meant for Everyone. Go on! Try all of the new brain teasers that combine logic and math to test your mental mettle. Find out our new collection of easy riddles and brain teasers. Almost Everyone loves solving brain teasers and challenging riddles right? If you think you’re already a pro at solving tricky riddles, put yourself to the test with these and try out I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle?

## What is I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle?

Have a look at the question!

"I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be?"

## What is the answer to I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle?

The answer to I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle is "The Word Few"

## Explanation:

The Explanation to I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle is that "a few" cannot be one, but it can be as low as two.

### I know a word of letters three, add two and fewer there will be? Riddle - FAQ's

1. There are two kinds of people on a mysterious island. There are so-called Honestants who speak always the truth, and the others are Swindlecants who always lie. Three fellows (A, B and C) are having a quarrel at the market. A gringo goes by and asks the A fellow: "Are you an Honestant or a Swindlecant?" The answer is incomprehensible so the gringo gives another quite logical question to B: "What did A say?" B answers: "A said that he is a Swindlecant." And to that says the fellow C: "Do not believe B, he is lying!" Who is B and C?

It is impossible that any inhabitant of such an island says: "I am a liar." An honestant would thus be lying and a swindlecant would be speaking truth. So B must have been lying and therefore he is a swindlecant. And that means that C was right saying B is lying - so C is an honestant. However, it is not clear what is A.

2. Afterwards he meets another two aborigines. One says: "I am a Swindlecant or the other one is an Honestant." Who are they?

Logical disjunction is a statement "P or Q". Such a disjunction is false if both P and Q are false. In all other cases it is true. Note that in everyday language, use of the word "or" can sometimes mean "either, but not both" (e.g., "would you like tea or coffee?"). In logic, this is called an "exclusive disjunction" or "exclusive or" (xor).
So if A was a swindlecant, then his statement would be false (thus A would have to be an honestant and B would have to be a swindlecant). However, that would cause a conflict which implicates that A must be an honestant. In that case at least one part of his statement is true and as it can't be the first one, B must be an honestant, too.

3. Our gringo displeased the sovereign with his intrusive questions and was condemned to death. But there was also a chance to save himself by solving the following logic problem. The gringo was shown two doors - one leading to a scaffold and the second one to freedom (both doors were the same) and only the door guards knew what was behind the doors. The sovereign let the gringo put one question to one guard. And because the sovereign was an honest man he warned that one guard is a Swindlecant. What logic question can save the gringo's life? You probably remember the answer from the very first problem on this page, don't you

There are a few types of questions:

1. Indirect question: "Hey you, what would the other guard say, if I asked him where this door leads?" The answer is always negated.
2. Tricky question: "Hey you, does an honestant stand at the door to freedom?" The answer will be YES, if I am asking an honestant who is standing at the door to freedom, or if I am asking a swindlecant standing again at the same door. So I can walk through the door. A similar deduction can be made for negative answer.
3. Complicated question: "Hey you, what would you say, if I asked you ...?" An honestant is clear, but a swindlecant should lie. However, he is forced by the question to lie two times and thus speak the truth.
4. Our gringo was lucky and survived. On his way to the pub he met three aborigines. One made this statement: "We are all Swindlecants." The second one concluded: "Just one of us is an honest man." Who are they?

The first one must be a swindlecant (otherwise he would bring himself into a liar paradox), and so (knowing that the first one is lying) there must be at least one honestant among them. If the second one is lying, then (as the first one stated) the third one is an honestant, but that would make the second one speak the truth. So the second one is an honestant and C is a swindlecant.

5. In the pub the gringo met a funny guy who said: "If my wife is an Honestant, then I am Swindlecant." Who is this couple?

It is important to explore the statement as a whole. In this logical conditional ("if-then" statement) p is a hypothesis (or antecedent) and q is a conclusion (or consequent).
It is obvious, that the husband is not a Swindlecant, because in that case one part of the statement (Q) " ... then I am Swindlecant." would have to be a lie, which is a conflict. And since A is an Honestant, the whole statement is true.
If his wife was an Honestant too, then the second part of statement (Q) " ... then I am Swindlecant." would have to be true, which is a conflict again. Therefore the man is an Honestant and his wife is a Swindlecant. Or is it a paradox? Think about it.