Q16

[ChristinaF532]

I'm not sure how to approach this question. I set up a new board with the condition but I'm at a loss as to how to go about making the appropriate inferences to eliminate answers.

Help!

Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

A lot of our upfront inferences get ruined here. So we're basically thinking we still have to worry about


V - O - M - F
...\
.....T

And then J is wherever.

We only get 1 premium, and
2nd = 3rd, (those can't be p)
and
the car before M = M (those can't be p)

(A) could O get a premium? We know we only get 1, so we can't let O be 2nd or 3rd, and we can't let O be the car before M.

Could we keep O from being 2nd or 3rd? No, actually. Its earliest is 2nd and its latest is 3rd.

Since 2nd = 3rd and we only get one premium, O can't have premium.

(We would luck out that (A) was the correct answer)

If you want us to show possible answers for the other four, let us know.

[AdjoaW937]

A lot of our upfront inferences get ruined here. So we're basically thinking we still have to worry about


V - O - M - F
...\
.....T

And then J is wherever.

We only get 1 premium, and
2nd = 3rd, (those can't be p)
and
the car before M = M (those can't be p)

(A) could O get a premium? We know we only get 1, so we can't let O be 2nd or 3rd, and we can't let O be the car before M.

Could we keep O from being 2nd or 3rd? No, actually. Its earliest is 2nd and its latest is 3rd.

Since 2nd = 3rd and we only get one premium, O can't have premium.

(We would luck out that (A) was the correct answer)

If you want us to show possible answers for the other four, let us know.

While I agree with your conclusion, I wanted to understand why you assumed that at the latest O is 3rd given our new rule. From how I understood our old rules and this new rule, O could be 4th but would have to be with R(regular wash) . It seems like you made the assumption that only 5 slots are available but I don't see why that would be a valid assumption given it's not a restriction of the original rules or the new rule, rather it was an inference of the original rules given that we only had 5 elements, but now we have 6. Thus, we have 6 slots to order our 6 cars. Am I mistaken in this logic? Would love clarification

[Misti Duvall]

A lot of our upfront inferences get ruined here. So we're basically thinking we still have to worry about


V - O - M - F
...\
.....T

And then J is wherever.

We only get 1 premium, and
2nd = 3rd, (those can't be p)
and
the car before M = M (those can't be p)

(A) could O get a premium? We know we only get 1, so we can't let O be 2nd or 3rd, and we can't let O be the car before M.

Could we keep O from being 2nd or 3rd? No, actually. Its earliest is 2nd and its latest is 3rd.

Since 2nd = 3rd and we only get one premium, O can't have premium.

(We would luck out that (A) was the correct answer)

If you want us to show possible answers for the other four, let us know.

While I agree with your conclusion, I wanted to understand why you assumed that at the latest O is 3rd given our new rule. From how I understood our old rules and this new rule, O could be 4th but would have to be with R(regular wash) . It seems like you made the assumption that only 5 slots are available but I don't see why that would be a valid assumption given it's not a restriction of the original rules or the new rule, rather it was an inference of the original rules given that we only had 5 elements, but now we have 6. Thus, we have 6 slots to order our 6 cars. Am I mistaken in this logic? Would love clarification

You're not mistaken. O could be fourth with the addition of a sixth spot, but in that case it couldn't have a premium wash because it would have to be right before M. Not sure if this was assumed in the original explanation, but it definitely helps to clarify!