Which one of the following, if substituted for the condition that Hamadi cannot be appointed to the same court as Per...

alva on September 8, 2019

I had the same question

Irina on September 8, 2019

@alva,

Let's quickly review the setup for this game.
7 judicial candidates - H J K L M O P - are appointed to one of the 9 open positions - 3 on the appellate court and 6 on the trial court, meaning two positions will remain unfilled. The following conditions apply:

T: __ __ __ __ __ __
A: __ __ __

(1) L must be appointed to the appellate court.
(2) K must be appointed to the trial court.

T: K __ __ __ __ __
A: L __ __

(3) H cannot be appointed to the same court as P.

So if H is appointed to the appellate court, P must be appointed to the trial court or no court at all and vice versa. Or it is possible that neither of them are appointed to any of the courts.

The question asks us which one of the following would have the same effect as rule #3.

(B) If H is not appointed to the trial court, then P must be.

This is equivalent to the rule saying that either H or P must be appointed to the trial court, whereas the original rule allows for other possibilities, such as :

- neither H nor P are appointed to any of the courts
- H is not appointed to any court, and P is appointed to the appellate court
- H is not appointed to any court, and P is appointed to the trial court
- H is appointed to the appellate court, and P is not appointed to any court
- H is appointed to the appellate court, and P is appointed to the trial court
- H is appointed to the trial court, and P is not appointed to any court
- H is appointed to the trial court, and P is appointed to the appellate court

Since this new rule in (B) significantly restricts the number of P/H placement options, we cannot say that it has the same effect as the original rule.

(E) No three of H, K, L and P can be appointed to the same court as each other.

We already know that K & L are appointed to different courts, and the rest of this rule "H & P cannot be appointed to the same court as each other" is exactly the same as the original rule (3). Thus, we can conclude that this rule will have the same effect as its first half will have no effect at all (K & L are already on different courts) per rules (1) & (2)) and the second half is the same as the original rule.

Does this make sense?

Let me know if you have any further questions.

manvir on December 27, 2019

I thought rule 3 meant that H and P are either on trial or appellate since each of the "7 candidates will be appointed to an open position" in one of the courts. Doesn't that mean it is not possible for either of them to be appointed to any of the courts? Aren't they required to be on one of the courts?

tkj97 on July 9, 2020

^ I had the same question. The passage states that each candidate will be appointed.