Each puzzle gives you a scenario — something disappeared, someone got framed, a system was tampered with. You get a list of suspects and a set of evidence clues. Your job is to figure out who did it (or what happened) using only what the clues tell you.

Read all the evidence before guessing. Some clues are straightforward alibis. Others only make sense after you combine them with a different piece of evidence. On harder puzzles, you need to chain three or four clues together before the answer becomes clear.

For the full breakdown, read the strategy guide below.

Play modes

Classic

Timer runs. Up to 3 hints. The standard experience.

Timed Trial

Countdown clock. Solve the case before time runs out.

Challenge

No hints. You get the evidence and nothing else.

How to solve deduction puzzles

A working approach. Not theory, just what actually helps.

Deduction puzzles look easy at first. Short scenario, a few clues, pick the right suspect. The easy ones are straightforward. But the format scales badly for the solver — at harder difficulties, the same style of puzzle becomes genuinely tricky because the clues interact in unexpected ways.

Read the full scenario first

Not just the clues — the scenario itself. It establishes the timeline, the setting, and the relationships between suspects. People skip this and then wonder why clue #4 doesn't make sense. The scenario is context. Without it, some evidence is meaningless.

Sort the evidence mentally

Every clue falls into one of a few categories. Alibis confirm where someone was. Contradictions knock people out of the running. Connecting clues link two pieces of evidence together. And then there are red herrings — facts that seem relevant but point nowhere.

On easy cases, most clues are alibis or contradictions. You can eliminate suspects one at a time until only one remains. On harder cases, you need the connecting clues — two facts that individually don't prove anything, but combined, narrow the field to one person.

Eliminate before you accuse

New solvers often jump to the suspect who "feels" guilty. That works on easy puzzles where the answer is obvious, but it falls apart on anything harder. Better approach: cross off everyone who can't have done it. If four suspects have solid alibis, the fifth one did it regardless of whether the evidence directly points at them.

This is why deduction puzzles are called deduction puzzles. You're not looking for proof of guilt. You're proving innocence for everyone else. The guilty party is whoever's left.

Building deduction chains

Expert and Einstein puzzles rarely give you a direct path to the answer. You get chains: "If suspect A was at location X, and the event at location X couldn't happen after 7 PM, and suspect A arrived at 7:15..." now you know A isn't your suspect. But that took three clues to establish.

When you're stuck, try working backwards from the answer. Ask: "For suspect X to be guilty, what would need to be true?" Then check if the evidence supports or contradicts that scenario. Do this for each suspect. It's slower than forward reasoning, but it catches things you might miss.

What each level expects

Easy — Three suspects with clear alibis. One person doesn't have a solid defense, and that's your answer. Good for learning the format.
Medium — Four suspects. Some clues point in the wrong direction on purpose. You need to actually reason through eliminations instead of just picking the obvious choice.
Hard — Four to five suspects with evidence that requires combining multiple clues. Alibis aren't always airtight. Timeline analysis becomes necessary.
Expert — Five suspects and multi-step reasoning chains. Some clues serve double duty — they eliminate one suspect while simultaneously providing evidence against another.
Einstein — Five or more suspects, deliberately few clues. Every piece of evidence carries multiple implications. Missing one connection stalls the entire case.

Quick tips

Alibis that seem airtight sometimes have gaps. Check the timeline precisely.
If a clue mentions a specific time, object, or location, it matters. The puzzle doesn't waste words.
Two suspects who both "could have done it" means you haven't found the distinguishing clue yet. Keep reading.
On Einstein puzzles, try writing down what each suspect would need to be guilty. The one with no contradictions is your answer.