hilarykustoff Wrote:Why can't the answer be C? Don't both H and Z have to be on the same committee?
This is a local question asking us what could be true when M and W are on finance.
I will plug in what we know:
And I know immediately that Z will be on the incentives because of our rule with W and Z being on separate sides.
I also know from the contrapositive that L will be on the incentives.
The rule as written is L(F) ---> M(I) and U(I)
So we know that L could not be on F, so it must be on I. As of right now, we do not know where U is going to go. As of now, it can go I or F. We just know that L could not go to F.
I have placed 4 of the 7 variables. I have 3 left to place: UGH
I know that I have rules governing these variables, one of them being the constant separation of U and G. I now think the most prudent thing to do is to show the possibilities. U in F and then U in I.
I now need to place the last variable of H into these 2 hypotheticals. In the first frame, G is in I, which means that my G(F) --->H(I) rule does not trigger. I could place H in either committee and it will work. I decide to show this by placing an H in a "Noah cloud" which indicates this idea.
As for the second frame, this has G in F. This triggers the rule in question. This will require H to be in I.
As you can see, choice C would have H and Z be together on the F side.
The correct answer is that L and U can be on incentives together, choice D.