"What to do with a chicken, an onion, and a potato?" is about as perfect and straightforward a challenge as could be imagined. Particularly in the venue of the French Culinary Institute -- and particularly in front of these judges, for whom those ingredients are seen as a Holy Trinity of Fundamental Elements. Along with the classic " Make Me An Omelet " test (which would have ended the show a little too quickly), the Trial of The Chicken is traditionally seen as a near religious passage, a station of the cross, an early task on the One True Path to chefdom. Just as it is widely believed that "you can tell everything you need to know about a cook by how he makes an omelet", the cooking of a simple chicken makes an open book of whoever prepared it. There's no wiggle room, no lying, no weaseling, and no misrepresenting when you're facing the Test of The Chicken (or the Omelet, for that matter). No amount of garnish or frippery will help evade the truth. As they say in the courtroom: "Res Ipsa Loquitor" (The thing speaks for itself.) You might have noticed that Hung won both challenges. Sirio Maccione picked him for the Quickfire winner. Chef Andre Soltner picked him for the Elimination winner...and that's enough for me.
Let's step back and look at who did what -- and what we might have learned about the remaining contestants. We received very good supporting evidence for the proposition that Hung and Casey remain the candidates to beat. It was a close call between the two on the Quickfire -- and an equally close call in Elimination. In the Quickfire, both were able to "deconstruct" or analyze the dish in question and recreate it efficiently.
In Elimination, unlike the other three contestants, they read the judges and the situation brilliantly: These judges were old school, traditionalists, teachers, with a shared love and respect for basic techniques and the classics.