by ohthatpatrick Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:02 pm
I'm afraid I don't have anything much in the cleverness department here. I also just felt like I had to just try some possibilities and used the either/or for spot 2 as my starting point.
They only thing I can suggest is that, on a Could Be True question, that once you have a scenario (or even a partial one) check the answers. All you need is one possibility to prove an answer is correct, so sometimes you get lucky and see that the 2nd scenario you came up with works!
It does help a little if you organized the initial information of who was "instrument buddies" with who.
i.e. I had a list like
N: T, V
O: S, V
S: O, T
T: N, S
V: N, O
This makes it a little easier/quicker to pick who can be consecutive with whom.
If N is 2nd, either T or V has to be 1st.
If T is 2nd, either N or S has to be 1st.
Seemingly, any of those could work, so (A) is already appealing. We know (B) just breaks the rule.
(C) is impossible given that O is not someone who is "instrument buddies" with N or T.
(D) and (E) fall into that "less likely" category, because they're pushing N and T closer to the end, which could endanger their ability for one of them to be in spot 2.
So if we take a first pass, (B) and (C) could be quickly gone, and then (A) seems like the scenario most likely to work, if we want to use that to guide the first scenario we try.
But, to me, doing that first pass analysis might involve just as much time/cleverness as quickly writing out the 4 scenarios you listed and then checking the answers.
Nice work.