ðˈʌs, ɐ naɪˈiːv ɹˈiːdɚɹ ʌv sˈʌtʃ fˈɪkʃən mˌaɪt wˈɛl kəŋklˈuːd ðˈæt, ˈiːvən ɪn ɹˈiːəl lˈaɪf, ɪf ɐ dɪtˈɛktɪv fˈeɪlz tə sˈɑːlv ɐ kɹˈaɪm, ɪɾ ɪz ˈiːðɚ bɪkˈʌz ðə pˈɜːpɪtɹˌeɪɾɚɹ ˈɛksᵻkjˌuːɾᵻd ðə kɹˈaɪm wˈɛl ɪnˈʌf tʊ ɐvˈɔɪd lˈiːvɪŋ ðə nˈɛsᵻsɚɹi klˈuːz—lˈaɪk ɐn ᵻkwˈeɪʒən fɔːɹ wˌɪtʃ nˌɑːt ɪnˈʌf vˈɛɹɪəbəlz kʊd biː kəmpjˈuːɾᵻd — ɔːɹ bɪkˈʌz ðə dɪtˈɛktɪv wʌz nˌɑːt klˈɛvɚɹ ɪnˈʌf tə pɹˈɑːpɚli loʊkˈeɪt, ɐsˈɛmbəl ænd ˈænɐlˌaɪz ðoʊz klˈuːz tə dɪtˈɜːmɪn wʌt hæd əkˈɜːd—lˈaɪk ɐ mˌæθɪmɐtˈɪʃən hˌuː lˈæks ðə skˈɪl tə hˈændəl ðə kəmplˈɛksᵻɾi ʌvðɪ ᵻkwˈeɪʒən wɪð wˌɪtʃ hiː ɪz pɹɪzˈɛntᵻd.
Thus, a naïve reader of such fiction might well conclude that, even in real life, if a detective fails to solve a crime, it is either because the perpetrator executed the crime well enough to avoid leaving the necessary clues—like an equation for which not enough variables could be computed — or because the detective was not clever enough to properly locate, assemble and analyze those clues to determine what had occurred—like a mathematician who lacks the skill to handle the complexity of the equation with which he is presented.