- Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:52 pm
Beeke, I am a total template junkie - I do them all the time, even when they aren't the best approach - and I don't think this one is a true template game. The last rule isn't all that restrictive, as it doesn't force certain variables into fixed relationships or certain spaces. All it does it establish that this a defined game, setting up a 2-1-1-1-1-1 numerical distribution. In fact, that actually suggests NOT doing templates - it would be much more interesting if the year for two monuments could be either 1st or 2nd, setting up two possible distributions, and perhaps templates based on those. With only one distribution, fixed firmly in place, templates may be going overboard and doing more work than is called for.
The first rule gives us a sequence of G-L-F, but that sequence, covering only 3 of 6 spaces, isn't that exciting. Add a fourth to that sequence and I would jump all over a template approach, but here it still leaves a lot of flexibility.
That said, once I diagrammed the rules, I did try out a couple "what if" ideas to see if it might be a template game and what other inferences I could make. For example, I like to push sequences to their extremes, so I started by putting G as far to the right as I thought I could get away with, the 4th position. That put L 5th and F 6th, and...wait a minute, there's no room for H! My not-laws for H under 1 through 3 helped me spot that quickly, and I added a not-law for G at 4th and another for L at 5th. Then I pushed the sequence the other direction and put F as early as I could, 3rd. That put L 2nd and G 1st. Not-laws for M under 4 and 5 meant that M had to join G at 1st, and H and S (the random variable) became interchangeable at 5 and 6.
At this point I could have pursued other "what-if" scenarios, but having gotten a good sense of the game I felt it was time to move on. Even I, a template junkie, didn't think it would be worth it to try G 2nd (if a question asks me to do so, I'll do it then), or G first and L 3rd (I'll go there later if I must). Why? Because the benefits didn't seem to be there. I could already see the overall shape of the game, the distribution was done, and the not-laws were doing great work for me. I felt well prepared for the questions, and that's all I want from my diagram. Anything more is overkill. I'm guilty of it much of the time, but not in this case.
I hope that helps! Don't get too addicted to templates!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam