The only hard question on this game. Remember, four answers are wrong. You shouldn’t treat them as if they’re good answers! They’re almost certainly wrong. The answers have to prove themselves to you before you take them seriously.
You’re looking for a rule which will have:
- The same restrictions as the original rule.
- No additional restrictions.
The original rule was simply: Hamidi and Perkins can’t be together, on either court. Let’s evaluate the answers from this perspective.
A: What about the trial court? This answer lets H and P be together on the trial court.
B: This answer lets H and P be together on the trial court.
C: Jefferson can go on either court. So using this answer, Jefferson could go on the appellate court, and Hamidi and Perkins could be together on the trial court.
D: What happens if Hamidi is not appointed to the same court as Li? In that case, this rule allows Hamidi and Perkins to be together.
Those answers are useless. They were put there to distract you and prevent you from looking at answer E.
Let’s talk about how you can replace a rule. You can’t just reword a rule. That would be the same rule. Instead, you have to use some other factors already present in the game to achieve the same effect.
The game places Li in the appellate court, and Kurtz in the trial court. So, we can say that Li is the appellate court and Kurtz is the trial court. By which I mean: anyone placed with Li is on the appellate court. Anyone placed with Kurtz is on the trial court.
E talks about “three of Hamadi, Kurtz, Li and Perkins”. Li and Kurtz are already separate. So three of those four must either be:
Hamadi, Perkins and Li, or
Hamadi, Perkins and Kurtz
Those are the two possibilities rule three originally prevented. So answer E is CORRECT, it achieves the same effect as the original rule.
Want a free Logic Games lesson?
Get a free sample of the Logic Games Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for going faster at logic games
Riss says
Answer choice C says that if P and J are appointed to the same court, H cannot be. I do not understand the explanation above for this choice. Yes, J can go on either court. If J goes to appellate, P goes to appellate too, since the answer choice said “if P and J are appointed to the same court, H is not”. So P and J could both go to appellate, and H would have to go to trial, right? I don’t see how H and P could be together in any court from answer choice C if the answer choice says “if P and J are appointed to the same court, H is not.” They must be in two different courts from what I understand.
TutorRosalie (LSATHacks) says
The reason why answer choice C doesn’t make sense is because it’s not the correct answer. This is a rule substitution question, so the correct answer choice has to be something that preserves the status quo set by rule 3 (H and P can’t be on the same court). Answer choice C doesn’t do anything to replicate rule 3’s effect on the game board.
A tip would be to look for the most restricted elements. Answer choice C involves J, which is really a floater.
Ally says
I don’t understand why B isn’t a possible correct answer here. If there are only two courts and all judges are appointed to a court. If we know that Hamadi is not appointed to one of the courts, then he must be appointed to the other one. Therefore, Hamadi would be appointed to appellate and Perkins to trial. I get why E is correct but I am having a tough time “disproving” this one to myself.
FounderGraeme Blake says
The problem is that this rule allows both Hamadi and Perkins to be appointed to the trial court. The rule only says what happens if Hamadi is NOT appointed to the trial court. It doesn’t say what happens if Hamadi IS appointed to the trial court.
We need a rule that covers both scenarios.