>>10861230Oh, that test is devious. Took me a moment until I understood what the catch is.
There is no rule that says "ONLY A is allowed to have a 3 on the other side", so if you turn over the 3 and find, let's say, a Y, it doesn't invalidate the rule. For all you know, As and Ys are both allowed to have 3s on the other sides. No one forbid that.
Think of it in terms of: "All sparrows are birds. But not all birds are sparrows.", and in comparison: "All As must have a 3 on the other side. But not all 3s must have an A on the other side"
The only other card that could directly violate that rule would be the 7. Because if it ends up having an A on the other side, then not all As would have a 3, and therefore the rule would be invalid.
