- Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:45 am
That's exactly the rule that the separation principle might apply to, LSAT_2018, although it does so somewhat imperfectly, because while the Professors cannot sit next to the Instructors, it may be that the Professors could sit next to each other and the Instructors could also sit next to each other (as would happen in the last rule).
There aren't any major inferences that come directly and obviously out of the rules here. With no sequencing rules we don't get any obvious not-laws, and there are no rules that tell us who can or must be in any particular space. In a situation like this, you have two choices: 1) try one or two hypotheticals to see what happens, perhaps gaining a deeper understanding of the game along the way, maybe making a key inference or two; or 2) dive into the questions, noticing that a lot of them are Local questions for which you will likely be drawing out scenarios anyway.
Either approach is valid here. While I think most people would head into the questions quickly, and would do just fine doing so, I happen to be obsessed with trying "what-if" scenarios. If you are able to do them quickly, they can be a great benefit. While I am not saying you must do this, here's one that I would try: what if V is at space #4? I chose this because it will have an impact on several other variables, pushing the two Professors away from the middle but also raising questions about the last rule about WVR (which may in turn impact the GR rule). So, here I go:
With V, an Instructor, in space 4, the two Professors are forced into positions 2 and 6, in either order. Wait a minute...where can I put W? W, another Instructor, cannot go next to Professors F or G, but every available seat right now is next to one of them. Holy cow, V cannot go 4th! And for the same reason, neither can W! Now we're cooking! There's the separation principle at work in a big way! (This also directly answers one of the global questions, so bonus).
In fact, looking at this hypothetical, I can see that there is no way that the two Professors could ever be in spots 2 and 6. They will have to be closer to each other than that. If I try them in spots 2 and 5, or else in 3 and 6, I'll run into the same problem - at least one Professor will have to sit next to at least one Instructor. They have to get closer still, such as in spots 2 and 4. That will work if the two Instructors are next to each other in spots 6 and 7, or the mirror image of that could happen with the Professors in 4 and 6 with the Instructors in 1 and 2. Both of these will trigger the last rule about WVR. This exercise will also directly answer another global question and give you plenty of ammo to attack at least one of the local questions.
So, while this "what-if" approach wasn't required, speaking for myself I found it to be entirely worth the time an effort. I came away from it with a better understanding of how all the rules interact with each other, as well as a few scenarios that I can use to answer a good chunk of the questions without having to do much, if any, additional diagramming. Consider adding a little "what-if" process to your diagramming routine and see how it might benefit you in the long run. It's not always going to pay off in as big a way as this one did for me, but with practice you'll get a feel for when you should try it and which "what-if" questions you should ask yourself.
Give that a try, and good luck!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam