I've added some information to the setup explanation for this game, Rosy, and you might want to start by reviewing that here:
viewtopic.php?f=1491&t=36649&p=98844#p98844
Rule Substitution questions are the bane of our existence. They can be very time consuming, and they can be hard to prephrase. But there are a few strategies that we can use to help reduce the time and effort that we expend on them, especially when we have templates (as I did in the setup) or when we have done a number of local diagrams to answer earlier questions. One of those strategies is what I think of simply as "is this true?" Here's how it works:
Read an answer choice. Compare it to every diagram you did previously. Is this answer true in every single diagram? If not, then it's a wrong answer, because this answer is NOT having the same effect as the original rule had. Let's use that here:
A: M and G have to be in the same row. Was this true? No, in two of my three templates they were not in the same row. This is a loser; cross it out.
B: If M is in row 1, K is 2nd or 3rd in that row. Was this true? Yes, so I'll keep it for now.
C: If J and L are in the same row, G and H are in row 2. Was this true? No, in my first template J and L were together in row 2 and G and H were in row 1. Loser, cross it out.
D: J and L together is always paired with H being in row 2. Was this true? No, for the same reason answer C was not true (first template). Cross out this loser.
E: J and L together always pairs up with M in row 2. Was this true? Yes, so I'm keeping it for now.
That quickly I am down to two contenders, B and E. How do I eliminate one of them? I pick one answer choice and ask myself if this answer forces G and H to be together, since that was the rule I was supposed to replace with the same effect.
Answer B is true, but it only applied to my second template. So, I ask myself, what if M is NOT in row 1? Could I put it in row two and then split up G and H into separate rows? Could I, for example, do this?:
1: KGJ
2: MLH
Yes, this would work under the new set of rules! J and L are not together so their order doesn't matter, M is first in its row, and K is in row 1. I didn't break the rule in answer B, but I was able to do something that never would have worked under the original constraints. That makes this answer a loser because it is NOT having the same effect as the original rule! G and H are no longer required to be together! Cross out answer B and select E with confidence.
And just in case you weren't sure, answer E forces G and H to always be together because:
M in row 1 would, under the new constraint, force us to split up J and L. That means row 1 would have M, K, and either J or L, and G and H would both have to go into row 2 with the other of L or J (looks just like template 2).
M in row 2 forces L and J to be together, so either they are both in row 1 and we look just like template 3, or they are both in row 2 and we look just like template 1. In every case, G and H get pushed into the same row as each other, which is the effect we were looking for.
Try this "is this true?" approach on all five answer choices, and you will often be able to eliminate several of them from consideration, saving yourself a lot of time in dealing with the remaining contenders. There are some other strategies, too, like asking yourself how you would diagram those contenders, and seeing if the new diagram looks exactly like the old one. Experiment with that one as you encounter more of these types of questions in your practice.
One thing to remember about Rule Substitution questions is that testing each answer choice is a last, desperate resort (as it is for most questions). Try some of these other strategies first, before going down that path, if you want to save time and effort.
