Which one of the following interns CANNOT be assigned to Tuscany?

This is partially a question and partially feedback: I am finding quite a bit of emphasis in these logic game explanations on using prior work to answer later questions and am a bit concerned. I understand that this may be a critical strategy, but I am finding myself thinking "I wouldn't have seen that" or "that's not how I went about answering X prior question." Also, I have seen situations in which new deductions could be made using the set up instead which I find may be a bit more reliable/consistent? In this question for example, we can say "H" cannot be in Tuscany since we have already determined that both J and H must be photographer's assistants a J occupies the Tuscany spot. (Also a quicker route.) I think it's good practice to learn how to use prior work, but am afraid I am missing out on valuable deduction practice as a result. Any thoughts?