Well, logically, if the third man were further down the coast than the second, the likelihood of his hearing him, and my not doing so is slim. Thus implying, that the third is therefore lying, and must be the savage. This means, then, that the second, because he was closer to the first man, and went out of the way to remark on the first man, positively. He must therefore be a noble. Also, as the second man did not remark that the first was a savage, despite the first's answer that he was a noble, the first must be a noble as well.

Well, logically, if the third man were further down the coast than the second, the likelihood of his hearing him, and my not doing so is slim. Thus implying, that the third is therefore lying, and must be the savage. This means, then, that the second, because he was closer to the first man, and went out of the way to remark on the first man, positively. He must therefore be a noble. Also, as the second man did not remark that the first was a savage, despite the first's answer that he was a noble, the first must be a noble as well.