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.

# Mixed setup | Overview | Rules and deductions

Watch a demonstration of how to approach a mixed setup on the analytical reasoning section of the LSAT.

## Want to join the conversation?

• At (looking at Scenario 1), why can't Hernandez be in segment 2 and Fallon go in segment 4? This would create a scenario where you'd have G and L in segment 1, H in 2, M and K in 3, and F in 4.
• The scenario you described is definitely possible it's just not the only solution to the problem so she didn't fully fill it out for scenario 1. It is also possible that H could be in segment 1 with G or L in section 2.

We just don't have enough information at this time to fully solve scenario 1.
• Same as the other guys. In Scenario 1 she's saying a rule is there that isn't, .
• H not being able to go into segment 3 isn't explicitly given as a rule but can be deduced by the rules given. We know that H is followed by F and M (rule 1) and that M is tied to K (rule 2), so H must have three empty segments following it for F, M, and K to go into. This isn't possible if we put H in segment 3.
(1 vote)
• Why only 2 politicians allowed in segment 1?
• I believe that only 2 are allowed in 1 because the first segment has to be greater than the second segment, and if the first segment had 3 it would only allow for segments 2-4 to have 1. Which would not allow for the MK rule to work. Please let me know if this is correct, but I believe it is. Good luck.
• At the diagram is incorrect. The person in the video falsely puts H in 1 to precede F and MK, but H could just as easily be in 2 and F in 4. She simply jumps to an utter non sequitur.
• Why can't there more than one person in 2 if there are only 2 people in 1?
• "At least one of the politicians will be interviewed in each segment, and none will be interviewed in more than one segment."

It doesn't specify that each politician is interviewed at least once. Isn't it possible then to have 1-2 politicians not be interviewed? Why is it assumed otherwise? This trips me up when making concrete deductions.

For example, to satisfy Rule 3, couldn't a potential setup could be 2:1:1:1? Do we assume all values in a setup/range are used once?