Main content
Course: LSAT > Unit 1
Lesson 5: Analytical Reasoning – Worked examples- Ordering setup | Overview | Rules and deductions
- Ordering setup | Given info–basic 1 | Worked example
- Ordering setup | Given info–basic 2 | Worked example
- Ordering setup | Given info–could be true | Worked example
- Ordering setup | Given info–cannot be true 1 | Worked example
- Ordering setup | Given info–cannot be true 2 | Worked example
- Ordering setup | Given info–must be true | Worked example
- Ordering setup | New info–could be true 1 | Worked example
- Ordering setup | New info–could be true 2 | Worked example
- Ordering setup | New info–could be true 3 | Worked example
- Ordering setup | Completely determines | Worked example
- Ordering setup | New info-must be true | Worked example
- Grouping setup | Overview | Rules and deductions
- Grouping setup | Given info–basic | Worked example
- Grouping setup | Given info–could be true | Worked example
- Grouping setup | Given info–must be false | Worked example
- Grouping setup | Given info–must be true 1 | Worked example
- Grouping setup | Given info–must be true 2 | Worked example
- Grouping setup | New info–could be true 1 | Worked example
- Grouping setup | New info–could be true 2 | Worked example
- Grouping setup | New info–must be true | Worked example
- Grouping setup | "Completely determines" | Worked example
- Mixed setup | Overview | Rules and deductions
- Mixed setup | Given info–basic | Worked example
- Mixed setup | Given info–could be true 1 | Worked example
- Mixed setup | Given info–could be true 2 | Worked example
- Mixed setup | Given info–must be true | Worked example
- Mixed setup | Given info–cannot be true | Worked example
- Mixed setup | New info–could be true | Worked example
- Mixed setup | New info–must be true 1 | Worked example
- Mixed setup | New info–must be true 2 | Worked example
- Mixed setup | Rule substitution | Worked example
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Mixed setup | Given info–could be true 1 | Worked example
Watch a demonstration of one way to approach a "Given info: could be true" question on a mixed setup from the Analytical Reasoning section of the LSAT.
Want to join the conversation?
At1:10why can't H be third? Can't we have h third and mk fourth?(1 vote)- H can't be third because it needs to be before both mk AND F(1 vote)
1:10Video transcript
- [Instructor] Before
you watch this video, make sure to go through the overview video for this same setup. That's where we went
through the introduction and notated the rules
and made the deductions that you'll see me using in this question. So this question asks us how many of the politicians are
there, any one of whom, could be the sole politician interviewed in the third segment. What we're being asked to identify how many of the politicians could be alone in the third segment without
breaking any of the rules. The answer isn't immediately
obvious from our diagram, so we'll have to work it
out using what we know from the rules and the deductions. It'll help if we can eliminate some candidates right off the bat. So let's think about who can't be alone in the third segment, either because they can't be alone, or because they can't
be in the third segment. Well we can rule out Kim or
Munson since they're together, and so they aren't ever alone. Can't be Hernandez
because we know Hernandez can't ever be third. So so far, that leaves
Greer, Lewis, and Fallon. Think about scenario two, which is the only one that works here. In scenario two, could
Fallon be third alone? I think so, we could
put Hernandez in second, and Greer and Lewis would
be first, this is fine. Okay, how about Greer or Lewis? Well if Greer or Lewis were
to be alone in segment three, that would mean that
Fallon is in segment two in order to be after
Hernandez, and then Hernandez and the other of Greer or Lewis is in one, so that works as well. That means that B is our answer. There are three politicians, any one of whom could be the
sole politician interviewed in the third segment,
Fallon, Greer, and Lewis.