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