LSATtrainee204 wrote: if G is in then J and K are out.
Thanks for the question! You've run into some problems with the way the rule is stated and subsequently drawn some false inferences so let's take a closer look.
Above, I pulled the first section out of your comment that is in error. What you've stated here is a Mistaken Negation of the fourth rule. If G is out
, then we do know what happens with J and K, but if G is in
, then as far as J and K we do not know what happens and can make no inference. This threw off your analysis of the answers and caused the issue you had.
Let me know if that makes sense, because Mistaken Negations are one of the easiest traps of theirs to fall into (especially with rules that have negative sufficient conditions, as I discuss here: The Most Dangerous Conditional Rule on the LSAT