If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

## LSAT

### Unit 1: Lesson 4

Analytical reasoning – Video lessons

# Mixed setup questions | Video lesson

Watch how early deductions can make help you solve the questions quickly and efficiently on the analytical reasoning "logic games" section of the LSAT.

## Want to join the conversation?

• In the last question, why wouldn't A be true that Frank performs second, when we already deducted that Leslie was 1st and 4th, or D be true that Gladys performs 6th?
• Because according to our deductions based on just the initial rules, either Leslie or Frank could go second and we could still completely follow all the rules. We deduced that thing about Leslie going first and 4th only with an additional and temporary rule.
• How do you distinguish when it is best to redraw or not redraw your diagram?
• Usually, you should redraw a bare-bones sketch when a new/temporary rule is introduced
• At why stop at choice A when choice C, that Leslie demonstrates weaving first must also be correct? If the choices where switched would the answer still be the same?
• The question asks what MUST be true. In this new scenario, Leslie could demonstrate weaving or spinning first, based on the deductions.
• How much time should I dedicate to the initial set up for each scenario on test day? I.e prep time vrs answering time do you have a benchmark?
• But isn't harvesting the first demonstration Frank is giving and not the second as the order indicates that Frank must be before Gladys?
• Hello! It's not going by Franks' first or second demonstration. It's going by the order of demonstration in general. Which L is first and F is second with harvesting. We know F is for sure second because, with the temporary rules, the second L is already elsewhere demo-ing "m". So that means F must be second, as we drew in our diagram after deductions. Hope that makes sense.
(1 vote)
• At if the tasks can not be the same two in a row (mentioned earlier in the video, but still don't understand why as it is not explicitly stated), then why would G be able to go between F...G, shouldn't it only be allowed to be the last after L? Thanks!
• A person (F, G, L) is able to give two demonstrations in a row (Thus FGGF could be possible). The rule about "No two tasks will be demonstrated concurrently" just tells us that there aren't two demonstrations occurring simultaneously, they follow each other sequentially.
(1 vote)
• why can't C be right in Frank demonstrate threshing?
(1 vote)
• Because the question is asking what must be true. C probably could be true, but W can go almost anywhere in the demonstration order as it has few rules applying to it, so we don't know that it must be demonstrated by Frank.
(1 vote)
• At, why can't E be the correct answer?
(1 vote)
• Could you draw a replica of the original setup and then write the new rules in? Because, it gets confusing with stuff all over the paper.Please this is con confusing, and I need help!
(1 vote)
• Why the option A is not correct?
(1 vote)