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 | New info–could be true | Worked example
Watch a demonstration of one way to approach a "New info: could be true" question on a mixed setup from the Analytical Reasoning section of the LSAT.
Want to join the conversation?
The incorrect assumptions from8:45in the setup video for scenario 1 are carried over here. The question can be correctly solved without making those assumptions in that step.(3 votes)
I'm confused though because you can still put Greer in the third segment if Lewis was in the first segment with Hernandez.(1 vote)
The question states, "If Fallon was interviewed before Lewis.." which means Lewis cannot be in segment 1. Since Hernandez is interviewed before Fallon, Hernandez would have to be in segment 1 and Fallon would have to be in segment 2.(3 votes)
- Even though the demonstrator came up with a wrong set up, she could still solve the problem because the wrong set up is "could be true" although it is not "must be true". What we can learn from here is that even with a bad set up, we can still get the question right unless it is totally wrong.(1 vote)
Video is down, can someone check on the link?(1 vote)- It is working now.(1 vote)
8:45Video transcript
- [Instructor] Before you watch this video make sure to watch the
overview video for the set-up. That's where we notated the rules and made the deductions that
you'll see me using here. So the question asked says if Fallon is interviewed in
an earlier segment than Lewis which one of the following could be true? This is a could be true question and with the new condition that Fallon is interviewed earlier than Lewis. Because we built two scenarios
in our initial set-up we can first ask, which
scenario or scenarios allow Fallon to be interviewed
earlier than Lewis? If one scenario doesn't
let this condition happen then we can ignore that scenario for the purposes of this question only. That said, it looks like
both scenario one and two allow this condition. So let's re-draw both and
apply the new condition. Alright. In scenario one, Fallon would
have to be in segment two so that Lewis can be later than Fallon as the question tells us. That puts Lewis in segment four and then Greer and Hernandez
are left to be paired in segment one. In scenario two, for Fallon
to be earlier than Lewis that would have to mean that Fallon is second and Lewis is third because we know that Fallon
can't be in segment one. So that means that Hernandez and Greer are the only ones left
to be in segment one. Now that we've made these deductions let's evaluate the choices to find out which one could be true. A, Fallon is interviewed
in the third segment. Well, this can't be true. In this question, Fallon is interviewed in the second segment in both scenarios. B, Greer is interviewed
in the third segment. This can't be true because we deduced that Greer is interviewed
in the first segment in both scenarios. C, Hernandez is interviewed
in the second segment. This must be false because
Hernandez is interviewed in the first segment in both scenarios. D, Lewis is interviewed
in the second segment. This can't be true because in scenario one Lewis is interviewed in the fourth segment and in scenario two, we determined that Lewis is interviewed
in the third segment. Let's take a look at E. Munson is interviewed
in the fourth segment. This could be true because
it's true in scenario two. Since it's possible at least once for Munson to be interviewed
in the fourth segment then this is our answer. When you're given a new condition like we were in this question remember that it's a temporary condition that's only necessarily applicable for the question that you're working on. It won't conflict with
any of the original rules that you were given unless you're explicitly told that it does but it doesn't necessarily have to be true for any of the other questions.