You are in a land where there are only knights and knaves. Knights always tell the truth and knaves always lie. You come across three inhabitants of this land who are out on a boat off shore. It’s dark and you can’t tell who is who so you shout out to them, "Which one of you is a knight and which one is a knave?" The first one says something, but the wind comes up and you can’t hear what they said. The second one then says, "She said she’s an knight, and so am I." The third one says, "They’re both lying; I’m an knight and they’re both knaves." Who is a knight and who is a knave? For full credit, you must explain/prove your answer.

The first two are Knights

Explanation:

Assume A is a knave. In that case, she is lying. B’s statement is then a contradiction because a knight could never say “If she is lying (she is), then I am a knave,” because that would be a lie. Similarly, if B was a knave, B would never say, “If she is lying (she is), then I am a knave,” because that would be the truth. So if A is a knave, B cannot be a knight or a knave, which is a contradiction. Therefore, A cannot be a knave. Because A cannot be a knave, A must be a knight. In that case, she is not lying. B’s statement is then vacuously true. Therefore, B must be a knight, since a knave cannot make a true statement.

situational archetype describes the adventures of hero. the examples of situational archetypes are the quest, good vs evil, the task which represent respectively search, good forces, characters vs the evil ones and a certain job that must be done. from the given options, we cannot observe the subplot the beauty and the beast which is a correct answer for this question.

"character is what you are in the dark." dwight lyman moody, in this very witty quotation of his, states we act and think differently when we are "in the dark", that is, when the spotlight is not on us and everyone can see us and consequently judge us. when reading, we tend to be sympathetic to some characters and their dilemmas. by being so, we are saying to ourselves that we agree with those characters' acts and choices, even if they are morally questionable if we have common sense in mind. dwight lyman moody's quotation applies very well to "crime and punishment", by   19th century russian writer fiodor dostoyevsky. raskolnikov, the main character, a former law student who spends his days reflecting upon life and its misery, draws a fatal conclusion: mankind is divided in two main categories: ordinary and extraordinary people. the first are the ones who lead a run-of-the-mill existence and are full of imperfections; the latter are the ones who are spiritually superior, the ones who always know better, and have the right to judge the ordinary ones, as well as eliminate them if for common good. raskolnikov considers himself as belonging to the extraordinary category and decides to kill an old lady who is a money lender and in whose house he rents a small room. raskolnikov compares himself to napoleon, who had the undeniable right to execute tons of people during the war in order to save his nation. of course what the main character decides to do is a horrendous crime, but as readers we feel it is the right thing for him to do, since the victim is a mean old woman who only thinks about money and keeps humiliating her younger sister. what one experiences is a mixture of sympathy and empathy for the character, even though he decides to commit homicide, which is not at all accepted or tolerated by civilized citizens. however, since readers are "in the dark", they allow themselves to feel in ways they would probably never dare to confess to anyone, no matter how nasty or vicious a character can be. after all, they are just reading and doing no harm. in other words, readers are in the dark and can be who they are without being judged.