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 | Rule substitution | Worked example
Watch a demonstration of one way to approach a "Rule substitution" question on a mixed setup from the Analytical Reasoning section of the LSAT.
Want to join the conversation?
For rule substitution questions, will the answer always replicate the exact rule it is replacing? Or is that just the case for this question?(6 votes)
Once again, quickly looking at the options and our sketch, we should immediately see that B is the correct option, and not bother testing anything else first.(4 votes)
Video transcript
- [Instructor] Before
you watch this video, make sure to watch the
overview video for this setup. That's where we notated the rules and made the deductions that
you're gonna see me using here. So the question asks which
one of the following, if substituted for the constraint that Hernandez must be
interviewed in a segment that is earlier than any segment in which Fallon or Munson is interviewed, would have the same effect in determining the program segments in which the politicians are interviewed? This type of question can be challenging, and sometimes students
opt to skip them entirely because they can often be time-consuming. We're looking for a rule in the choices that could replace rule number one and have the exact same effect. We'd see the same deductions,
no more deductions, and no fewer deductions
than what we originally got. So let's revisit rule number one. It tells us Hernandez must
be interviewed in a segment that is earlier than any segment in which Fallon or Munson is interviewed. Now, let's evaluate the choices and see which one could replace this rule and have the exact same
effect on the setup. A, Hernandez must be
interviewed in a segment that is earlier than any segment in which Lewis or Munson is interviewed. This doesn't work because it gives us an
entirely different deduction than what we originally had. We knew that Hernandez had to be on an earlier segment
than Fallon or Munson, but this choice changes Fallon to Lewis. And it's not true that Hernandez has to be earlier than Lewis. For example, if you take
a look at scenario two, Lewis could be in segment one and Hernandez could be later
than Lewis in segment two. B, Hernandez must be interviewed in a segment that is earlier than any segment in which
Fallon or Kim is interviewed. This is our answer. This rule has the same effect as rule one because we know that
Munson and Kim are a pair based on rule two. So all this choice did was
swap out Munson for Kim, which is totally fine since Munson and Kim
always go together anyway. Let's check the remaining choices in case you had questions about them. C, Neither Fallon nor
Munson can be interviewed in the first segment. This is a true deduction because
we know that neither Fallon nor Munson can be in segment one. However, this choice doesn't
replace rule number one because we've now lost the part about Hernandez being earlier
than Fallon or Munson. And since we've lost deductions, this choice doesn't adequately
replace rule number one. D, Fallon most be the sole
politician interviewed in one of the program segments. Just like with choice C, this is one of our initial deductions, but it doesn't have the
same effect as rule one because we've now completely
lost the relationship between Hernandez and Fallon
and Hernandez and Munson. E, Hernandez must be interviewed in the same segment as
either Greer or Lewis. This isn't a good replacement
for rule number one because in scenario two
of our original setup, Hernandez could be alone in segment two while Greer and Lewis would
be together in segment one. This choice would no longer
allow for Hernandez to be alone, so it adds a deduction that
wasn't originally true. So our answer is B.