From rule 3 or 4 alone, isn't there still a possibility for both R & L or S & V to be volunteers? When one is absent, the other must volunteer. However, there is no requirement that they both cannot be volunteers. In other words at least one should volunteer. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

I second this question. I thought from rule 3 if S is out then V is in meant that Sand V being in is not an option. Please clarify.

#2 - If Veena volunteers, how could Salman also volunteer? B, the chosen answer, isn't right in that case. #4 - If M volunteers, R and T would also volunteer. If R volunteers, L cannot. Therefore, B isn't the right answer again. Please clarify #2 and #4. Thanks!

In question 2 , if salman does not volunteer then veena must volunteer, does not says anything as to what happens if salman volunteers. So the conclusion that if salman volunteers then veena can also volunteer is not contradicted. However , option B still is wrong because since Rochelle is not volunteering Leah has to.

Regarding Q2, it's explicitly a mistake on Khan's part. In Q3, they state outright this deduction: "That means that Salman must be in, since Veena is out (Rule 4)." However, in question 2, they claim: "Since we didn’t make any deductions about either Felicia or Salman, each employee could volunteer or not volunteer." They did not consider that Veena being in would negate Salman being in in Q2, but they did utlize that assumption in Q3. It really is as simple as "If V, then S" and "If S, then V." The writers even rest upon that assumption, thus the answer to 2 is wrong.

So following this line of thinking on this questioning, I'm not understanding this statement here written on Khan. Rule 3: If Salman is out, then Veena is in. No remaining choices apply to this rule, since Salman is present in all of them. Since not all the answers have Salman, is this a typo on behalf of Khan? (A) Felicia, Salman (B) Masatomo, Rochelle (C) Leah, Salman, Terry (D) Salman, Rochelle, Veena (E) Leah, Salman, Terry, Veena

can someone explain why it's possible for both Salman and Veena to volunteer?

I had this question as well. I think it is because the condition only states IF S is NOT in THEN V is in. We only know that Veena is in, not if S is in or not. Therefore, the conditional couldn't go the other way around (If V is in THEN S is not in). I hope this helped :)

Question 2 and it's explanation are very poorly written. We need a CLEAR explanation of why S and V could ever possibly be together given RULE 3.

Ikr. I thought I was crazy. Like B was the first thing I crossed of.

Main content

Course: LSAT > Unit 1

Lesson 3: Analytical Reasoning – Articles

How to approach grouping setups

Google Classroom

Grouping setups overview

Grouping setups are common on Test Day. In this article, we’ll examine pure grouping setups (as opposed to mixed setups that include an ordering component), and share some tips to raise your game and boost your score.

We recommend that you learn how to approach ordering setups before you move on to grouping setups.

Ordering setup overview article

Ordering setup video lesson

How do we recognize grouping setups?

There are a few ways you can recognize simple grouping setups, but the most obvious way might be that there is no ordering component to the task, and there’s only one kind of assignment that needs to be determined. Note that grouping setups, in comparison to ordering setups, have a bit more variety in how they’re presented to you.

A few examples of grouping tasks:

Determine which of 3 appetizers each of 7 people will eat.
Determine whether each of 8 birds are in the forest or not in the forest.
Determine in which of 2 seasons each of 10 employees will take a vacation.
Determine which, and how many, of 3 upgrades each of 6 cars have.
Determine which 5 of 7 people are selected to be on a committee.

Notice that order doesn’t matter in any aspect of the tasks above; for example, selecting some of 7 people to be on a committee doesn’t imply any kind of ordering to the selection—it’s simply that five people will be on the committee and two will not. So the “groups” in that example are the “In” group and the “Out” group.

Additionally, instead of putting elements into subgroups, the task could ask you to assign elements to different groups, and those elements could repeat—for example, in the first example above, there are three appetizers and seven people. The “groups” are now the people, and the elements being assigned to them are the appetizers. It’s possible that all seven people eat the cheesy bread, for example. It’s also possible that none of the people eat bacon-wrapped dates.

And if you see a grouping task, but you also see that order matters for some parts of the setup, then you’re looking at a mixed setup.

Ordering setups are covered in this article.

Mixed setups are covered in this article.

What should we pay attention to in the passage?

In the passage for a grouping setup, you’ll be given a certain number of elements and told that they will be grouped in some way. Sometimes, the numbers will be simple: 9 people and 3 subgroups, for example. Sometimes, however, the numbers won’t line up exactly that way; perhaps there will be 7 people for 3 groups and it’s possible that one group is empty. Always pay attention to how the number of elements could be split by group based on the restrictions provided!

What does the sketch look like for a grouping setup?

In general, it’s good to represent what’s happening in the setup with a diagram or sketch. The diagrams of grouping setups can be more varied than those of ordering setups, since grouping setups are more diverse in their tasks. We’ll show you a few different setups here, but the commonality is that elements are “grouped” into different categories.

Elements assigned to different sub-groups:

Suppose we have a task in which employees ABCDEF are all traveling, each employee to exactly one of countries X, Y, and Z. In addition, we learn that at least one employee goes to each destination. Your empty diagram (before establishing any rules or deductions) might look like this:

Only establish spots that you know an element will occupy. For example, we know in this setup that at least one employee goes to each country. If we hadn’t known that, then we wouldn’t have drawn one blank under each country.
It can be useful to make a list of all the “players” or “elements” in the setup. In the diagram above, and in many of the diagrams in Official LSAT Practice on Khan Academy, you’ll see these “player banks”—they can help you keep track of the elements you have used as you add them to the diagram.

Elements are either assigned to a group, or not assigned to that group (“In/Out”):

Suppose we have a task in which employees ABCDEF are either promoted or not promoted. Functionally, this isn’t too different from our first example, but the rules tend to be largely conditional in these types of setups—for example, “If A is not promoted, then B is promoted.” Since all employees must fall into one category or the other, we like to recommend an “In/Out” diagram.

Here are two options that you can use—the first option can always be used, whereas the second option can only be used if you know exactly how many elements are “in” and how many are “out.”

The first “In/Out” setup can also be used if there are only two sub-groups, for example if you’re determining whether classes are offered in the fall or the spring, and there isn’t an option for a class to not be offered at all.
Remember that order doesn’t matter in grouping setups! In the second sketch above, the sequence of blanks resembles what we use for ordering setups, but they’re not labeled (for example with numbers) in grouping scenarios. They’re just placeholders for elements.
Prepare yourself for many (if not all) rules in this particular type of grouping setup to be conditional rules. That means you’ll want to know how to form the logically equivalent rule (often called the “contrapositive”) in order to be accurate and efficient.
A helpful article on forming the contrapositive can be found here.

What kind of rules are typical in grouping setups?

Since grouping involves assignment, then some of the most common rules will involve how elements are—or are not—assigned. Let’s continue with the task we made up above, in which each of employees ABCDEF will be traveling to exactly one of countries X, Y, and Z. We will likely see rules that resemble the following:

Exactly one employee will travel to X.
A will not travel to X.
A and B don’t travel to the same country.
A and B don’t travel to the same country, nor do either of them travel to X.
A and B travel to the same country.
There are fewer employees traveling to X than to Y.
If A travels to X, then B travels to Z.

What are some good ways to represent these typical rules, and what can I deduce from each one?

It’s a good idea to get into a habit of consistent rules notation. That doesn’t mean that any one notation is the “correct” one, though! Let’s talk through these rules, and we’ll give you one suggestion for each rule, and you can either use our suggestion or come up with your own. We’ll also let you know if there are any deductions that you can make for each rule, so that you can start to formulate deductions quickly and easily.

For these examples, we’ll imagine that the six employees ABCDEF are traveling to countries X, Y, and Z—each employee travels to only one country, and each country is traveled to by at least one employee.

Exactly one employee will travel to X.

Deductions:

We said that numbers are important in grouping (and mixed) setups. Always pay attention to what we can deduce from information regarding numbers!
If exactly one employee travels to X, and we know that at least one employee travels to Y and to Z, then that leaves us with three spots to establish.
If the setup gives you a maximum of employees who can travel to each country, then that restricts the numbers more (and we like that!). For example, if the maximum of employees who can visit each country is three, and we have six employees in our list, then we know that one employee travels to X, two or three travel to Y, and two or three travel to Z. In other words, the numbers will be 1:2:3 or 1:3:2.
If, however, the setup doesn’t give us a maximum of employees who can travel to each country, then the possibilities are more numerous. The numbers could be 1:1:4, 1:4:1, 1:2:3, 1:3:2.

A will not travel to X.

Deductions:

Since A doesn’t travel to X, we can deduce that A must travel to either Y or Z. If there were only two groups to pick from, then “not X” would mean that A must travel to the other group.
Since A can only travel to two different countries, look for opportunities in the questions to build two scenarios around A—this is a helpful move only if doing so leads to additional deductions.

A and B don’t travel to the same country.

Deductions:

Since this rule tells us about something that can’t happen, we can’t make any useful deductions from this rule alone.
What’s likely is that either:
1) this rule will lead to deductions when it’s combined with another rule (for example, a rule that states, “B travels to Y” leads to the deduction that A can’t travel to Y), or
2) this rule will lead to deductions when it’s combined with temporary rules in the questions (for example, a temporary rule might tell us, or allow us to determine, that the travelers to country X don’t include A or B, which would mean that one of A and B travels to Y and the other travels to Z).

A and B don’t travel to the same country, nor do either of them travel to X.

Deductions:

Since A and B both don’t travel to X, and they can’t be a pair, that means that one of them travels to Y and the other travels to Z.
We don’t know which one goes where, but we can “reserve” a spot for each of them under countries Y and Z.
This allows us to account for A and B and create a placeholder for them so that they are included in any applicable counts or possibilities.

A and B travel to the same country.

Deductions:

Since grouping setups have a limited number of groups, you may be able to create scenarios around this AB pair.
For instance, you could draw three scenarios, one in which AB travels to X, to Y, and to Z. If, for example, you were also told that each country has a maximum of two visitors, this would greatly restrict where all of the other elements can go.

There are fewer employees traveling to X than to Z.

Note the rule off to the side; we’ve chosen to use a “less than” sign.
It’s important to note both the rule and the deduction in situations such as this one. Compare this to a rule that states that “A travels to X”: in this case, the rule is completely accounted for and we’ll never need to refer to it again. However, in this rule, we don’t know if X has one employee and Z has two employees, or if X has two employees and Z has three employees, or if X has one employee and Z has three employees.

Deductions:

We can deduce that Z must have at least two employees, so we can add a blank directly to our initial diagram.
Note that we’re not necessarily done with X and Z ! We don’t know if X has one employee and Z has two employees, or if X has two employees and Z has three employees, or if X has one employee and Z has three employees.

If A travels to X, then B travels to Z.

Deductions:

We’ll want to remember to note the logically equivalent rule: if we learn that B doesn’t travel to Z, then we’ll deduce that A doesn’t travel to X.
That means that if we learn that B does travel to X or Y, then this rule triggers and we can deduce that A travels to either Y or Z.
If you have multiple conditional rules, it’s not necessary (or even recommended) to “chain” them all together the way we do in ordering setups. As long as you have all of the rules written out neatly on your page, you’ll be able to “follow the triggers” as you move through the questions.
In other words, if you have a rule stating that “if A is selected, then B is selected” and a separate rule that states, “if B is selected, then D is not selected”, don’t spend the time making a longer rule from the two rules. Just keep the individual rules neat and lined up.

Practice Example

Now, let’s take everything we’ve learned and apply it to an actual LSAT setup!

A company organizing on-site day care consults with a group of parents composed exclusively of volunteers from among the seven employees—Felicia, Leah, Masatomo, Rochelle, Salman, Terry, and Veena—who have become parents this year. The composition of the volunteer group must be consistent with the following:

If Rochelle volunteers, then so does Masatomo.

If Masatomo volunteers, then so does Terry.

If Salman does not volunteer, then Veena volunteers.

If Rochelle does not volunteer, then Leah volunteers.

If Terry volunteers, then neither Felicia nor Veena volunteers.

What does the setup tell us?

We have seven employees, some of whom will be part of a volunteer group. Since it’s not necessarily true that all of the employees will be volunteers, then that’s a grouping scenario—either an employee volunteers, or that employee doesn’t volunteer. There is no ordering component to this task, since there’s no arrangement or sequence of any kind. Go ahead and make a basic sketch based on this information before we look at the rules!

What do the rules tell us?

Go ahead and note the rules, making sure to take the time to understand them, and to get them right the first time!

If you followed our notation suggestions, your notes could look like this. If you used your own and they make sense to you—great!

Rule 1: If Rochelle is in, then Masatomo is in. The equivalent rule is that if Masatomo is out (in other words, not in), then Rochelle is out.
Rule 2: If Masatomo is in, then Terry is in. The equivalent rule is that if Terry is out, then Masatomo is out.
Rule 3: If Salman is out, then Veena is in. The equivalent rule is that if Veena is out, then Salman is in.
Rule 4: If Rochelle is out, then Leah is in. The equivalent rule is that if Leah is out, then Rochelle is in.
Rule 5: If Terry is in, then Felicia is out and Veena is out. The equivalent rule is that if Felicia is in or if Veena is in, then Terry is out.

What can we deduce?

Now it’s time to make deductions! Can you use what we covered in this lesson in order to deduce what must be true beyond what’s presented to us at face value?

Remember the note from earlier in the article: don’t spend time “connecting” conditional rules to make longer conditional rules.
One deduction we can make from Rule 3 is that at least one of Salman and Veena must volunteer. Can you see why? If Salman is out, then Veena is in, and likewise, if Veena is out, then Salman is in. That means that they can’t both be out! If we tried to make them both be out, then the rules would trigger them both to be in!
That means that we can draw a blank under the In column and reserve that spot for S/V.
Keep in mind that they could both be in, but we don’t draw spots unless we know for sure that an element will occupy that spot.
The same is true for Rule 4: at least one of Rochelle and Leah must be in. We can draw a blank for L/R.

Here’s an example of an initial diagram for this setup, based on what we uncovered:

We’re in a really great spot to move on to the questions! With this diagram, we won’t have to use much (if any) time-consuming “trial and error”, and we'll gain points on Test Day.

We strongly recommend against using this initial diagram to “test” choices or sketch possibilities. It’s generally better for accuracy purposes (even if it takes a tiny bit more time!) to do a quick re-sketch when a question provides you with a new condition to consider. What this initial diagram represents is everything that’s always true, in every acceptable scenario. What “new condition” questions present are temporary conditions. You likely don’t want to mix temporary conditions with permanent conditions. That said, you don’t need to resketch the entire initial diagram for each “new condition” question; a bare-bones version while you consult the original version can work great.

Which one of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the volunteers?

(A) Felicia, Salman
(B) Masatomo, Rochelle
(C) Leah, Salman, Terry
(D) Salman, Rochelle, Veena
(E) Leah, Salman, Terry, Veena

One approach that tends to be very efficient might seem a little counterintuitive at first. Instead of looking at each choice and evaluating it against all of the rules, it makes sense to look at each rule one at a time and eliminate the choices that violate that rule. Think about it this way: if the answer is (E), then looking at each choice first means going through all of the rules five times. But if you start with the rules and eliminate choices after looking at each rule, then you only have to go through the rules once!

What choice(s) does each rule eliminate when you evaluate each rule one at a time? Let’s take a look at them together!

Rule 1: If Rochelle is in, then Masatomo is in. (D) breaks this rule, so we can eliminate (D).
Rule 2: If Masatomo is in, then Terry is in. (B) violates this rule.
Rule 3: If Salman is out, then Veena is in. No remaining choices apply to this rule, since Salman is present in all of them.
Rule 4: If Rochelle is out, then Leah is in. We can cross off (A).
Rule 5: If Terry is in, then Felicia and Veena are both out. (E) doesn’t conform to this rule.

The only choice remaining is (C), so that’s our answer!

If Veena volunteers, then which one of the following could be true?

(A) Felicia and Rochelle also volunteer.
(B) Felicia and Salman also volunteer.
(C) Leah and Masatomo also volunteer.
(D) Leah and Terry also volunteer.
(E) Salman and Terry also volunteer.

When given a new condition, it usually makes sense to re-draw a bare-bones sketch of your initial diagram and incorporate the new condition—for this question, our new condition is that Veena is in:

Now, can you use this new diagram to make further deductions? In other words, what is the impact of V being in?

Since Veena is in, we know that Terry is out (Rule 5).
If Terry is out, then Masatomo is also out (Rule 2).
And since Masatomo is out, then Rochelle is also out (Rule 1).
That means that Leah is in (Rule 4).
Leah being in doesn’t trigger any new information from the rules, so we should be done with our deductions. Let’s use this diagram to answer the question!

(A) can’t be true. We deduced that Rochelle doesn’t volunteer.
(B) could be true! Since we didn’t make any deductions about either Felicia or Salman, each employee could volunteer or not volunteer.

On Test Day, we would stop there, select (B), and move on—there can’t be two correct choices on the LSAT! Here are the explanations for the remaining choices:

(C) must be false. We deduced that Leah volunteers, but that Masatomo doesn’t volunteer.
(D) must be false. We deduced that Terry is out.
(E) must be false. We deduced that Terry is out.

Great job! All we had to do was follow the deductions that were triggered by the previous deductions—it can be very straightforward as long as you stay organized with your notation!

If Terry does not volunteer, then which one of the following CANNOT be true?

(A) Felicia volunteers.
(B) Leah volunteers.
(C) Rochelle volunteers.
(D) Salman volunteers.
(E) Veena volunteers.

When presented with a new, temporary condition, it usually makes sense to re-draw a bare-bones sketch of your initial diagram and incorporate the new condition:

Now, can you use this new diagram* to make further deductions? In other words, what is the impact of Terry being out?

Since Terry is out, then Masatomo is also out (Rule 2).
And since Masatomo is out, then Rochelle is also out (Rule 1).
That means that Leah is in (Rule 4).
Leah being in doesn’t trigger any new information from the rules, so we should be done with our deductions. Let’s use this diagram to answer the question!

We’re ready to evaluate the choices!

Which choice cannot be true?

(A) could be true, because we can’t deduce anything about Felicia in this scenario.
(B) must be true, because we deduced that Leah is in.
(C) must be false! We deduced that Rochelle doesn’t volunteer in this scenario.

On Test Day, we would select (C) and move on without evaluating the remaining choices. For your reference:

(D) could be true, because we can’t deduce anything about Salman in this scenario.
(E) could be true, because we likewise can’t deduce anything about Veena.

The answer is (C)!

If Masatomo volunteers, then which one of the following could be true?

(A) Felicia volunteers.
(B) Leah volunteers.
(C) Veena volunteers.
(D) Salman does not volunteer.
(E) Terry does not volunteer.

When presented with a new, temporary condition, it usually makes sense to re-draw a bare-bones sketch of your initial diagram and incorporate the new condition:

Now, can you use this new diagram* to make further deductions? In other words, what is the impact of Masatomo being in?

Since Masatomo is in, then Terry is also in (Rule 2).
And since Terry is in, then both Felicia and Veena are out (Rule 5).
That means that Salman must be in, since Veena is out (Rule 4).
Salman being in doesn’t trigger any new information from the rules, so we should be done with our deductions. Let’s use this diagram to answer the question!

We’re ready to evaluate the choices! Can you find the answer?

Which choice could be true?

(A) must be false, because we deduced that Felicia doesn’t volunteer.
(B) could be true! We can’t make any deductions about Leah based on the information given to us, so Leah could be in or out.

On Test Day, we would select (B) and move on without evaluating the remaining choices. For your reference:

(C) must be false. We deduced that in this scenario, Veena is out.
(D) must be false, because we determined that Salman does volunteer.
(E) must be false, because we determined that Terry does volunteer.

The answer is (B)!

If Felicia volunteers, then which one of the following must be true?

(A) Leah volunteers.
(B) Salman volunteers.
(C) Veena does not volunteer.
(D) Exactly three of the employees volunteer.
(E) Exactly four of the employees volunteer.

When presented with a new, temporary condition, it usually makes sense to re-draw a bare-bones sketch of your initial diagram and incorporate the new condition:

Now, can you use this new diagram to make further deductions? In other words, what is the impact of Felicia being in?

Since Felicia is in, then Terry is out (Rule 5).
And since Terry is out, then Masatomo is also out (Rule 2).
That means that Rochelle must be out, since Masatomo is out (Rule 1).
Because Rochelle is out, we can deduce that Leah is in (Rule 4).
Leah being in doesn’t trigger any new information from the rules, so we should be done with our deductions. Let’s use this diagram to answer the question!

We’re ready to evaluate the choices! Can you identify the answer?

Which choice must be true?

(A) must be true! We deduced that Leah must volunteer in this scenario.

On Test Day, we would select (A) and move on without evaluating the remaining choices. It can be nerve-wracking to do that at first, but have confidence in the work you did and gain time from that confidence! For your reference:

(B) could be false. We can’t make any deductions about Salman based on the information given to us, so Salman could be in or out.
(C) could be false. As with Salman, we can’t determine whether Veena is in or out.
(D) could be false, because if Salman and Veena both volunteered, then we would have an acceptable scenario with four employees volunteering.
(E) could be false, because if *Salman were in but Veena** were out (for example), then we would have only three employees volunteering.

The answer is (A)!

Which one of the following pairs of employees is such that at least one member of the pair volunteers?

(A) Felicia and Terry
(B) Leah and Masatomo
(C) Leah and Veena
(D) Rochelle and Salman
(E) Salman and Terry

First, we’d want to look at our initial diagram and see if the answer is apparent there. We know that one of Salman and Veena must volunteer, but that’s not one of the choices. We also know that one of Leah and Rochelle must volunteer, but that’s not one of the choices, either!

The next thing we can do is look at diagrams that we created for previous questions. Do we see pairs in our previous diagrams that can both be out?

We can eliminate (D), because in the question directly above, Rochelle and Salman could both be out without causing any issues, so it doesn’t have to be true that at least one of that pair’s members must volunteer.
We can likewise eliminate (E) based on the question directly above. Salman and Terry could both be out, since Salman could be either in or out.
We can cross off (C), because two questions ago, it was possible for both Veena and Leah to be out.
We can then cross off (A), because three questions ago, it was possible for both Felicia and Terry to be out!

(B) is the answer.

Let’s say you weren’t able to eliminate any choices based on previous work that you did. You could quickly test each choice with your pencil, making both members of the pair be out—if you can create a scenario that works, then the choice is wrong. If you can’t create a scenario that works, then you have your answer!

Takeaways

Order and arrangement don’t matter in grouping scenarios. In other words, you could list elements in any order and it wouldn’t change the dynamics of the task.
Numbers can be very important in grouping tasks. Pay attention to minimums and maximums (if there are any) per group, and look for ways that you can make deductions based on those numbers.
Know how to manage conditional rules! You’ll want to be very adept at forming the logical equivalent of conditional rules (sometimes known as the “contrapositive”).

Next steps

Watch a demonstration of how to approach a Grouping setup

head over to the practice area

Then, once you've finished your diagnostics and created a practice schedule, head over to the practice area and try some grouping setups on your own!

Want to join the conversation?

Sort by:

dressupjong
Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to dressupjong's post “From rule 3 or 4 alone, i...”
From rule 3 or 4 alone, isn't there still a possibility for both R & L or S & V to be volunteers? When one is absent, the other must volunteer. However, there is no requirement that they both cannot be volunteers. In other words at least one should volunteer. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
Button navigates to signup pageButton navigates to signup page
(24 votes)
Answer
- Vivian.Obeyfabiyi
  Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to Vivian.Obeyfabiyi's post “I second this question. I...”
  I second this question. I thought from rule 3 if S is out then V is in meant that Sand V being in is not an option. Please clarify.
  Button navigates to signup page
  (41 votes)
Abishek Meenakshi Sundaram
Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to Abishek Meenakshi Sundaram's post “#2 - If Veena volunteers,...”
#2 - If Veena volunteers, how could Salman also volunteer? B, the chosen answer, isn't right in that case.

#4 - If M volunteers, R and T would also volunteer. If R volunteers, L cannot. Therefore, B isn't the right answer again.

Please clarify #2 and #4. Thanks!
Button navigates to signup pageComment on Abishek Meenakshi Sundaram's post “#2 - If Veena volunteers,...”
(19 votes)
Answer
- Sumant Kushwaha
  Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to Sumant Kushwaha's post “In question 2 , if salman...”
  In question 2 , if salman does not volunteer then veena must volunteer, does not says anything as to what happens if salman volunteers. So the conclusion that if salman volunteers then veena can also volunteer is not contradicted.
  However , option B still is wrong because since Rochelle is not volunteering Leah has to.
  Comment on Sumant Kushwaha's post “In question 2 , if salman...”
  (5 votes)
joannak08
Posted 5 years ago. Direct link to joannak08's post “How are the "equivalent r...”
How are the "equivalent rules" on Rule 3 and Rule 4 correct? With Rule 3, Veena and Salman could both be in. Similarly, with Rule 4, Leah and Rochelle could both be in.

Rule 3: If Salman is out, then Veena is in. The equivalent rule is that if Veena is out, then Salman is in.

Rule 4: If Rochelle is out, then Leah is in. The equivalent rule is that if Leah is out, then Rochelle is in.

These "equivalent rules" seem to commit the grave error we are warned against (creating rules that are not actually rules).
Button navigates to signup pageButton navigates to signup page
(16 votes)
Answer
Eugenia Edwards
Posted 5 years ago. Direct link to Eugenia Edwards's post “For the question: If Veen...”
For the question: If Veena volunteers, then which one of the following could be true?

How could the answer be (2) Felicia and Salmon could volunteer.

If Veena volunteers, Salmon cannot, so how could he volunteer? Thus how can number (2) be the answer?
Button navigates to signup pageComment on Eugenia Edwards's post “For the question: If Veen...”
(13 votes)
Answer
Aleija
Posted a year ago. Direct link to Aleija's post “Regarding Q2, it's explic...”
Regarding Q2, it's explicitly a mistake on Khan's part. In Q3, they state outright this deduction: "That means that Salman must be in, since Veena is out (Rule 4)." However, in question 2, they claim: "Since we didn’t make any deductions about either Felicia or Salman, each employee could volunteer or not volunteer." They did not consider that Veena being in would negate Salman being in in Q2, but they did utlize that assumption in Q3. It really is as simple as "If V, then S" and "If S, then V." The writers even rest upon that assumption, thus the answer to 2 is wrong.
Button navigates to signup pageButton navigates to signup page
(12 votes)
Answer
- Michael Dunlap
  Posted 10 months ago. Direct link to Michael Dunlap's post “So following this line of...”
  So following this line of thinking on this questioning, I'm not understanding this statement here written on Khan.
  
  Rule 3: If Salman is out, then Veena is in. No remaining choices apply to this rule, since Salman is present in all of them.
  
  Since not all the answers have Salman, is this a typo on behalf of Khan?
  (A) Felicia, Salman
  (B) Masatomo, Rochelle
  (C) Leah, Salman, Terry
  (D) Salman, Rochelle, Veena
  (E) Leah, Salman, Terry, Veena
  Button navigates to signup page
  (3 votes)
drew.lew96
Posted 6 years ago. Direct link to drew.lew96's post “Is there an error in the ...”
Is there an error in the first practice problem? For "Which one of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the volunteers?," the explanation for the right and wrong answers do not make sense to me. Please let me know if I am just misunderstanding the question, answer and explanation. I thought the answer could be either A (F&S) or C (L,S,T). When looking at the fast approach to solving this problem, your explanation states that A cannot be the correct answer because of "Rule 4: If Rochelle is out, then Leah is in. We can cross off (A)." However, option A does not mention Rochelle or Leah at all... It mentions Felicia and Salaman, so I'm not sure how they arrived at that conclusion.
Button navigates to signup pageComment on drew.lew96's post “Is there an error in the ...”
(10 votes)
Answer
BrandonK
Posted 5 years ago. Direct link to BrandonK's post “(We can then cross off (A...”
(We can then cross off (A), because three questions ago, it was possible for both Felicia and Terry to be out!)
I am confused on how Felicia and Terry could both be OUT if T is out that means F is IN. Am I missing something?
Button navigates to signup pageButton navigates to signup page
(9 votes)
Answer
- Manvee Nanda
  Posted 3 years ago. Direct link to Manvee Nanda's post “The rule says if T is in ...”
  The rule says if T is in F is out. Nothing is mentioned about what happens to F if T is out
  Button navigates to signup page
  (1 vote)
alyssack
Posted 10 months ago. Direct link to alyssack's post “can someone explain why i...”
can someone explain why it's possible for both Salman and Veena to volunteer?
Button navigates to signup pageButton navigates to signup page
(8 votes)
Answer
- lealveronika
  Posted 9 months ago. Direct link to lealveronika's post “I had this question as we...”
  I had this question as well. I think it is because the condition only states IF S is NOT in THEN V is in. We only know that Veena is in, not if S is in or not. Therefore, the conditional couldn't go the other way around (If V is in THEN S is not in). I hope this helped :)
  Button navigates to signup page
  (2 votes)
mailforchriscarter
Posted 9 months ago. Direct link to mailforchriscarter's post “Question 2 and it's expla...”
Question 2 and it's explanation are very poorly written. We need a CLEAR explanation of why S and V could ever possibly be together given RULE 3.
Button navigates to signup pageComment on mailforchriscarter's post “Question 2 and it's expla...”
(7 votes)
Answer
- zainab.o.shittu
  Posted 9 months ago. Direct link to zainab.o.shittu's post “Ikr. I thought I was craz...”
  Ikr. I thought I was crazy. Like B was the first thing I crossed of.
  Comment on zainab.o.shittu's post “Ikr. I thought I was craz...”
  (3 votes)
Adithi Adithi
Posted 5 years ago. Direct link to Adithi Adithi's post “#1 Which one of the follo...”
#1
Which one of the following could be a complete and accurate list of the volunteers?
(A) Felicia, Salman
(B) Masatomo, Rochelle
(C) Leah, Salman, Terry
(D) Salman, Rochelle, Veena
(E) Leah, Salman, Terry, Veena

The given answer is C. But isn't it already given that If R is present, M has to be present and if M is present T has to be present? How can the answer be a "complete and accurate list of volunteers" then?
R,M,T,S could be a complete and accurate list of volunteers right? But it's not given in any of the options.
According to the article on Contrapositives, If A is absent when B is present, then, A cannot be present if B is present. Is that correct or have i misunderstood contrapositives?
Button navigates to signup pageComment on Adithi Adithi's post “#1 Which one of the follo...”
(7 votes)
Answer

LSAT

Course: LSAT > Unit 1

Grouping setups overview

How do we recognize grouping setups?

What should we pay attention to in the passage?

What does the sketch look like for a grouping setup?

What kind of rules are typical in grouping setups?

What are some good ways to represent these typical rules, and what can I deduce from each one?

Practice Example

Beginning of reading passage.

Takeaways

Next steps

Want to join the conversation?