Which one of the following, if substituted for the condition that Fan and Haley cannot visit the same city as each ot...

shunhe on July 11, 2020

Hi @zacdon81,

Thanks for the question! So we know that (E) is going to be a good substitution for this rule that keeps F and H apart(since it’s the right answer). So let’s see if (A) is the same. There has to be two things that have to be true when we do a rule substitution like this. It has to not allow for any instances where F and H are together, obviously, so we can’t break the rule we’re trying to replace. So we can’t allow situations which the original rule would’ve banned. But to have the same effect, we also can’t ban situations which the original rule would’ve allowed. So we can’t add any restrictions. With that being said, under the original rules, was it possible for G and I to visit the same city as each other? Well, if we kept track of the previous questions on this game, we’d know that the answer is yes. And even if we didn’t, we could see that under the original rules, such a distribution is possible. Take a look at the following:

Manila: GI
Sydney: FI
Tokyo: HG

And we see that this is in accordance with all the original rules. I visited two cities, F and H aren’t in the same city, G is visiting Manila so H is visiting Tokyo, and G isn’t visiting Sydney. And each manager is there, and each city is visited by two managers. So this was possible under the original rules, but not under the new rule proposed in (A). Which means that (A) isn’t going to have the same effect in determining the assignment of managers to cities, and is incorrect.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.