- Mon Oct 05, 2020 1:34 pm
I think this thread might be mislabeled as #16, when it should be #17 (we'll get that changed). But I'm going to answer with an explanation about question 17, because it's clear from the answer choices you've referenced that that's the question you're asking about.
Answer choice A is not the correct answer, because it allows additional solution possibilities that our original rule would not have allowed. If answer choice A were the rule, it would only require J or K to be the mayoral nominee. If J were the mayoral nominee, then K would be "set free" to go anywhere the other rules allow. And since the other rules don't stop K from being a councillor, K could then be nominated as a councillor. This circumstance would violate the rule we're substituting for, meaning answer choice A would not have the exact "same effect."
Answer choice D is not the correct answer, because it too allows an additional solution possibility the original rule would not have allowed. Under the rule in answer choice D, if H is not the nominee for councillor, the rule doesn't have any further effect, and K is again "set free." This would allow K to be a nominee for councillor, violating the rule we're substituting for.
Answer choice E does not allow these extra possibilities, so it has the same effect as the original rule. The rule in answer choice E does allow K not to be a nominee, which is something the original rule allowed as well. And, since the other rules already prevent K from being the treasurer nominee (F or H must be the treasurer), when K is assigned, we simply need a rule that prevents K from being a councillor nominee. Answer choice E's rule does that by forcing K to be the mayoral nominee. Thus, it has the exact same effect as the original rule.
I hope this helps!