# Logical reasoning

How the Chemerinsky affair would look as an LSAT problem.

The LSAT used to have a section full of logic puzzles: “If nine dwarves are sitting in a circle, each wearing a green hat or a red hat, and no three consecutive dwarves have red hats, then what color was the bear?” or some such.

Recent events remind me of those puzzles.

Assuming:

1. That Chancellor Michael Drake of UC Irvine says that the establishment of a “world-class law school” there is his “overarching priority;”

2. That Drake also says that made a “management decision” that “Professor Chemerinsky and I would not be able to partner effectively to build a world-class law school at UC Irvine,” and so, having hired Chemerinsky, promptly de-hired him; and

3. Drake, having run into an unexpected sh*tstorm about the de-hiring, has now decided to un-de-hire Chemerinsky;

then what is the maximum number of the following statements that could all be true:

A. Drake is a truth-teller.

B. Drake understands how to create a world-class law school.

C. Drake intends to remain as chancellor.