These types of questions typically appear in logic games where the rules/conditions of the game are extremely restrictive in a way that only allow for a few different acceptable templates/scenarios, unlike many other sequencing games that even given the rules allow for a wide range of different arrangements.
It is important identify the most restrictive rules/conditions that significantly narrow the available possibilities and build around those.
Yeah, these bug me too. Here's a sample one: PT 34, June 2001, LG #9 in the Lecturer game. It asks for the "maximum possible number of different schedules."
Is there a fast way to do these, or do you just have to pound it out?
This game is a good example. No, you do not have to and should
NOT 'brute force/pound it out' by trying to draw out tons of hypotheticals. That method is very inefficient, time wasting and frustrating. Plus, by trying to do it that way you end up filling up all the available writing space you have on the page as well as wasting time that later will prevent you from being able to address other questions in the section before time is called. Hench, the brute force/pound it out method = TIME TRAP that costs you points. You may end up being able to brute force your way to the credited answer and get that point but at the cost of several more points you could have also gained by applying an efficient strategy.
For PT 34, June 2001, LG #9 :
According to the conditions of the game, the most restricted aspects to build around concern positions 3 and 4 in the sequence. Only either M or N can be lectured about during either of those two weeks/positions in the 5 variable linear sequence.
Combined with the condition that each subject will only be lectured about once (meaning that repeating the use of any variable is prohibited), there are only two possibilities to built the templates of possibilities around:
Template #1
____ ____ __
M__ __
N__ ____
1 2 3 4 5
Template #2
____ ____ __
N__ __
M__ ____
1 2 3 4 5
Since it is imperative to create a good set-up based on the restrictions of the game before rushing into the questions, you should have made those deductions and written down those two templates before approaching any questions of the game.
Additional deductions that were available to make during the set-up deduction process that make the questions much easier to solve quickly and efficiently without resorting to the brute-force method question by question are that since each lecture will only be given once, the possibilities for positions 1, 2 & 5 are much more limited than it initially appeared when you first read the game stimulus.
Since M and N are restricted to being the only possibilities to appear in positions 3 or 4, they cannot be placed in positions 1, 2 or 5.
That leaves only K or L as options for positions 1 and 2, and only O or P as options for position 5.
Leaving you with the following limited scenarios/templates in total for the game:
Template #1
K/L L/K M N O/P
1 2 3 4 5
Template #2
K/L L/K N M O/P
1 2 3 4 5
Given that question #9 in the stem imposes the local condition that the lectures must be in alphabetical order, you then work within template #1 and alphabetize the available options, leaving you with a total of 2 possibilities:
K L M N O
K L M N P
Author
