Thanks Danny and Mike for the explanations! I understand more clearly now.
Also Mike, if you don’t mind, could I ask a few more questions about this game, and related to The Trainer?
So if I were to avoid splitting boards by conditionals, for this specific game, would you have made one game board and stuck with that instead? I redid the game without splitting it– and it seemed to work fine (granted I’ve read over the rules many times by now). Then as a general rule of thumb, according to the way The Trainer taught, should I spilt game boards if I know a certain rule restricts the number of possibilities there are? i.e. What you said earlier about my confusion between conditional statements vs. rules that give us exhaustive consequences.
Also, this question is a bit off topic, but I was curious about this as I redid the game. In The Trainer you mention that if we have to constantly draw new boards throughout a single game, then we probably missed an opportunity to make additional inferences at the beginning. For this game, as I reworked the questions I found myself redrawing boards (*I’m also not sure if I should be writing in the additional conditions given in the questions next to the master game board or just draw an entirely new board near the question). Is this ideal, or am I missing a more efficient way to visualize the new conditions given in the questions?