LSAT Sample Questions and Answers

Logical Reasoning Sample Question

Moving on to our next set of LSAT sample questions, here’s a logical reasoning question.

Before you read the upcoming passage, you should see what the question requires so you know exactly what to look out for. This way, you won’t have to reread the passage and can save valuable time! 

Sufficient Assumption Questions:

Sufficient assumption questions on the LSAT can be identified by their specific phrasing and structure. Here's what the common question stems look like:

1. "Which of the following, if assumed, would make the argument logically valid?"
2. "Which of the following would strengthen the argument by providing support for the conclusion?"
3. "Which one of the following assumptions would make the conclusion follow logically?"

Sufficient assumption questions will typically present an argument with a conclusion and one or more premises. Your job is to find the answer choice that would make the conclusion valid if true.

The correct answer choice will fill in any gaps or assumptions not explicitly stated in the argument, making the conclusion logically inevitable. The answer must guarantee the conclusion.

To solve sufficient assumption questions, look for the gap in the argument and identify the answer choice that, if added to the argument, would make the conclusion logically follow. This often involves recognizing unstated premises that are necessary to the argument’s conclusion.

Sample Question

“An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.”

The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Anyone with a master’s degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the executive board.

(B) Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.

(C) An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator.

(D) If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.

(E) The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator.

Answer:

A. This option outlines sufficient conditions for board appointment. Its contrapositive is:
Not eligible for board → no master’s degree or felony conviction. That doesn’t help us because Murray already has a felony conviction, so this just reiterates that he’s not board-eligible. It provides no new insight.

B. Correct. We know Murray can’t be appointed to the board because of his conviction. This statement links board eligibility to eligibility for Executive Administrator. Diagram: Eligible for Executive Administrator → Eligible for board. Since Murray isn’t eligible for the board, this implies he’s also ineligible to be Executive Administrator.

C. This is irrelevant. It simply says a master’s degree isn’t necessary to be Executive Administrator, which doesn’t help us. It’s like saying, “Sarah got a 180 on the LSAT, but a 180 isn’t required for law school admission, so she won’t get in.” That logic doesn’t hold up, and neither does this answer.

D. This misrepresents the conclusion. It assumes that if Murray can’t be Executive Administrator, it must be because of his felony conviction. But that might not be the reason, he could be unqualified for other reasons.

E. This doesn’t establish that a felony conviction definitively prevents someone from being Executive Administrator. It suggests a possible issue, but doesn’t prove a direct disqualification.

Principle Questions:

To approach principle questions with confidence and score high on the LSAT, start by recognizing key phrases in the question stem. Common wording includes:

• “Which of the following principles...”
• “Which principle most justifies...”
• “Which one of the following conforms most closely to...”

Once you've identified the question as a principle type, break down the stimulus to uncover its core structure. Ask yourself:

• What is the main argument or scenario?
• What’s the conclusion, and how is it supported?

Next, abstract the rule. Imagine what general principle would either justify the reasoning in the argument or apply to the specific case. This requires moving beyond the details and thinking in broader terms.

Finally, match the logic; don’t stretch it. The correct answer will:

• Closely mirror the reasoning or outcome in the stimulus
• Avoid introducing new information
• Steer clear of being overly general or too narrowly tailored

Principle questions reward clear thinking and pattern recognition. With practice, you'll start to see the underlying structures faster and with more confidence.

Sample Question

“Ethicist: The most advanced kind of moral motivation is based solely on abstract principles. This form of motivation is in contrast with calculated self-interest or the desire to adhere to societal norms and conventions.”

The actions of which one of the following individuals exhibit the most advanced kind of moral motivation, as described by the ethicist?

(A) Bobby contributed money to a local charity during a charity drive at work because he

worried that not doing so would make him look stingy.

(B) Wes contributed money to a local charity during a charity drive at work because he believed that doing so would improve his employer’s opinion of him.

(C) Donna’s employers engaged in an illegal but profitable practice that caused serious damage to the environment. Donna did not report this practice to the authorities, out of fear that her employers would retaliate against her.

(D) Jadine’s employers engaged in an illegal but profitable practice that caused serious damage to the environment. Jadine reported this practice to the authorities out of a belief that protecting the environment is always more important than monetary profit.

(E) Leigh’s employers engaged in an illegal but profitable practice that caused serious damage to the environment. Leigh reported this practice to the authorities only because several colleagues had been pressuring her to do so.

Answer:

A. Bobby acted out of a desire to follow social norms.

B. Wes’s actions were driven by self-interest. He aimed to gain favor with his employer.

C. Donna was motivated by self-preservation; she wanted to avoid negative consequences.

D. Correct. Jadine acted on a moral principle. She was guided by a commitment to environmental protection, not by personal gain or social conformity.

E. Leigh made the right choice, but her motive wasn’t ideal. She acted due to social pressure rather than personal conviction.

Parallel Reasoning Questions:

If a question asks you to find an answer that mirrors the logical structure of the argument, you’re likely dealing with a Parallel Reasoning question.

Look for wording like this:

• "Which of the following most closely parallels the reasoning in the argument above?"
• "Which of the following exhibits the same pattern of reasoning as the argument above?"
• "Which of the following arguments is most similar to the reasoning in the argument above?"

Not all Parallel Reasoning questions follow this exact structure, but many do.

To solve Parallel Reasoning questions, start by analyzing the stimulus. Focus on the structure of the argument, so how the conclusion is supported by the premises rather than the specific content. Is the reasoning direct or conditional? This is key, as Parallel Reasoning questions test your ability to identify patterns of logic, not content.

A major LSAT tip for most LR question types, including parallel reasoning, is to ignore the subject matter in the answer choices. The correct answer will mirror the same logical structure, even if it discusses a different topic. Compare conclusions first, ensuring they match the tone and logical relationship of the stimulus. Then, check if the overall reasoning pattern (e.g., analogy, cause-and-effect) is the same.

Eliminate answers that don’t reflect the same logical structure. Even if the wording is similar, a mismatch in reasoning means it's the wrong answer.

Sample Question

“If Suarez is not the most qualified of the candidates for sheriff, then Anderson is. Thus, if the most qualified candidate is elected and Suarez is not elected, then Anderson will be.”

The reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the reasoning in the argument above?

(A) If the excavation contract does not go to the lowest bidder, then it will go to Caldwell. So if Qiu gets the contract and Caldwell does not, then the contract will have been awarded to the lowest bidder.

(B) If the lowest bidder on the sanitation contract is not Dillon, then it is Ramsey. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Dillon, then it will go to Ramsey.

(C) If Kapshaw is not awarded the landscaping contract, then Johnson will be. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Johnson, then it will go to Kapshaw.

(D) If Holihan did not submit the lowest bid on the maintenance contract, then neither did Easton. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Easton, then it will not go to Holihan either.

(E) If Perez is not the lowest bidder on the catering contract, then Sullivan is. So if Sullivan does not get the contract and Perez does not get it either, then it will not be awarded to the lowest bidder.

Answer:

A. This choice doesn’t identify either Caldwell or Qiu as the lowest bidder.

B. Correct. This option mirrors the structure exactly: it establishes that either Dillon or Ramsey is the lowest bidder, and then concludes that if the contract is awarded to the lowest bidder and Dillon doesn’t receive it, then Ramsey must.

C. This option fails to indicate that either Kapshaw or Johnson is the lowest bidder.

D. This answer draws the wrong kind of contrast. It should have stated that either Holihan or Easton is the lowest bidder. Instead, it allows for the possibility that neither is, which doesn’t follow the intended pattern.

E. The first part is accurate, correctly identifying either Perez or Sullivan as the lowest bidder. However, the second part diverges from the structure: the conclusion should have been that if Sullivan doesn’t get the contract and it’s awarded to the lowest bidder, then Perez does.

Paradox Questions:

To identify paradox questions, look for question stems like:

• “Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?”
• “Which one of the following best explains the surprising result?”
• “Which of the following, if true, most helps to account for the situation described above?”

To solve paradox questions, first find the paradox by identifying the two parts of the stimulus that appear to contradict each other. Then, ask yourself: Why is this unexpected? What’s confusing or contradictory? 

Once you figure that out, think about what kind of information would resolve the tension between the two parts. Finally, eliminate any answer that worsens the paradox, is irrelevant, or supports only one side. The correct choice should explain how both facts can be true at the same time.

Sample Question

“During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation.”

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the difference between the amount of innovation in French painting and the amount of innovation in French sculpture during the nineteenth century?

(A) In France in the nineteenth century, the French academy gave more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture. 

(B) The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average, than individual sculptors. 

(C) Because stone was so much more expensive than paint and canvas, far more unsponsored paintings were produced than were unsponsored sculptures in France during the nineteenth century. 

(D) Very few of the artists in France in the nineteenth century who produced sculptures also produced paintings. 

(E) Although the academy was the primary sponsor of sculpture and painting, the total amount of financial support that French sculptors and painters received from sponsors declined during the nineteenth century.

Answer:

A. This actually adds confusion. If the Academy was stifling, it doesn’t make sense that more academic support led to more innovation, especially in painting. That directly contradicts the idea that painters flourished under Academy support.

B. This has minimal impact. Even if the number of sculptors supported exceeded painters, and their funding was similar, that doesn’t explain the creative differences between the two groups. The support could still have been equally effective (or ineffective) for both. It doesn’t account for why painters were more innovative.

C. CORRECT. This explains the discrepancy well. If painters didn’t rely on the Academy and had other sources of support, they may have been freer to innovate. The phrase “far more” strengthens this answer because it ensures a meaningful difference in circumstances between painters and sculptors, directly accounting for the greater innovation among painters.

D. This just states that sculptors and painters were different people, which is trivial. The fact that the groups didn’t overlap doesn’t explain why one group was significantly more innovative than the other.

E. Incomplete reasoning. The idea that both groups may have faced “some” hardship or external factor doesn’t clarify why painters succeeded more than sculptors. It lacks a meaningful contrast between the two.

Necessary Assumption Questions:

You can spot these questions by looking for keywords like "depends," "relies," or "requires" in the question stem. The focus is always on what must be true for the argument to work, not what makes it weak (a key difference from sufficient assumption questions).

If a question asks you to identify a statement that the argument depends on, you’re likely dealing with a Necessary Assumption question. The key is that they focus on what must be true for the argument to hold.

To solve Necessary Assumption questions effectively, start by carefully reading the stimulus. All information is important here, so make sure nothing is glossed over. 

Find the conclusion, or the main argument the author is trying to make, and determine the premises offered in support. 

Then, look for logical gaps between the premises and conclusion. 

Sample Question

“Naturalist: The recent claims that the Tasmanian tiger is not extinct are false. The Tasmanian tiger’s natural habitat was taken over by sheep farming decades ago, resulting in the animal’s systematic elimination from the area. Since then naturalists working in the region have discovered no hard evidence of its survival, such as carcasses or tracks. In spite of alleged sightings of the animal, the Tasmanian tiger no longer exists.”

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the naturalist’s argument depends?

(A) Sheep farming drove the last Tasmanian tigers to starvation by chasing them from their natural habitat.

(B) Some scavengers in Tasmania are capable of destroying tiger carcasses without a trace.

(C) Every naturalist working in the Tasmanian tiger’s natural habitat has looked systematically for evidence of the tiger’s survival.

(D) The Tasmanian tiger did not move and adapt to a different region in response to the loss of

habitat.

(E) Those who have reported sightings of the Tasmanian tiger are not experienced naturalists.

Answer:

A. It’s irrelevant who killed the last Tasmanian tigers. What matters is that sheep farming significantly impacted their population. Even if hunters took out the final two, the core argument remains unaffected.

B. This weakens the argument if true. If carcasses were present but quickly consumed by scavengers, it suggests tigers may have still existed recently. The presence of carcasses would imply recent tiger activity.

C. Negating this statement has little effect. The behavior of one naturalist, especially one unable to conduct fieldwork, doesn't meaningfully impact the broader argument.

D. Correct. If this claim is false, if tigers relocated and adapted elsewhere, the argument collapses. That would indicate sheep farming wasn't solely responsible for their disappearance, weakening the conclusion.

E. This would support the argument but isn't essential. Like C, its negation doesn’t matter much. A single, unreliable sighting, especially under impaired conditions, has little evidentiary value.

Must Be True Questions:

If a question asks you to find a conclusion supported by the given passage, you’re likely reading a Must Be True question.

But that’s not all. When reading the question, look for wording like this:

• "Which of the following must be true?"
• "Which of the following conclusions follows the statement above logically?"
• "Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?"
• "The statements above, if true, most strongly support which of the following?"
• "Which of the following can be properly concluded from the above statements?"

Not all Must Be True questions follow this structure, but many do.

To solve Must Be True questions effectively, begin by carefully reading and analyzing the information in the stimulus, ensuring you understand all the facts presented. 

Then, diagram the statements to clarify their logical connections if the passage includes multiple relationships. 

Next, make valid inferences by applying logical rules such as syllogism (if A → B and B → C, then A → C), the transitive property, and contrapositive reasoning to draw conclusions that must follow from the given information. Then, use the process of elimination. 

Remember that in Must Be True questions, four answer choices can sometimes be wrong, while one must never be wrong. 

Sample Question

“Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the technical problems associated with its battery design are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions. But unless we dam more rivers, the electricity to charge these batteries will come from nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three power sources produces considerable environmental damage. Thus, the electric car _______.”

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

(A) will have worse environmental consequences than its proponents may believe

(B) will probably remain less popular than other types of cars

(C) requires that purely technical problems be solved before it can succeed

(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather than reduce it

(E) will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation

Answer:

• A. CORRECT. This accurately reflects the argument’s flaw. The proponents ignore the pollution created in generating electricity, meaning the overall environmental impact may be greater than expected.
• B. This misses the point. The author never discusses what factors influence a car’s popularity.
• C. The argument doesn’t rule out the possibility that electric cars could still be preferable to gas-powered ones. Even with pollution from electricity generation, they might still pollute less overall.
• D. This goes beyond the argument. The author establishes that pollution exists, not that electric cars create more pollution than gas cars. Plus, the reference to “emissions” may not apply to all power sources, such as nuclear energy.
• E. Similar to D, this overreaches. The argument supports the idea that pollution will occur, but not necessarily that it will exceed current levels."

Most Strongly Supported Questions:

Most Strongly Supported questions often appear as a series of factual statements or brief arguments without a clear conclusion. The correct response will reflect the idea most clearly indicated by those statements, even if it's not directly stated.

MSS questions are typically introduced with language like:

• “Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above?”
• “Based on the information given, which of the following is most likely true?”
• “The information above provides the strongest support for which one of the following?”

Unlike other question types, MSS questions rarely ask you to fix a gap in reasoning. Instead, they test your ability to read closely and draw a logical connection based solely on what’s provided.

Sample Question

“Modern science is built on the process of posing hypotheses and testing them against observations— in essence, attempting to show that the hypotheses are incorrect. Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom. It is accordingly unsurprising that some scientists are skeptical of the widely accepted predictions of global warming. What is instead remarkable is that with hundreds of researchers striving to make breakthroughs in climatology, very few find evidence that global warming is unlikely.”

The information above provides the most support for which one of the following statements?

(A) Most scientists who are reluctant to accept the global warming hypothesis are not acting in accordance with the accepted standards of scientific debate. 

(B) Most researchers in climatology have substantial motive to find evidence that would discredit the global warming hypothesis. 

(C) There is evidence that conclusively shows that the global warming hypothesis is true. 

(D) Scientists who are skeptical about global warming have not offered any alternative hypotheses to explain climatological data. (E) Research in global warming is primarily driven by a desire for recognition in the scientific community.

Answer:

A. The stimulus never mentioned an "accepted standard of scientific debate." This answer appears designed to evoke the idea of "scientific consensus," a term often linked to global warming discussions in the media, but it isn’t supported by the passage.

B. Correct. The argument implies that scientists value recognition, and since global warming predictions are widely accepted, challenging them would defy conventional wisdom. The stimulus asserts that overturning conventional wisdom brings significant recognition, so this answer fits perfectly.

C. The passage only notes that global warming predictions are widely accepted and have not been disproven, it doesn’t offer solid evidence that they are definitively true. Merely lacking disproof is not equivalent to irrefutable evidence.

D. This option is misleading. While the stimulus states that skeptical scientists lack opposing evidence, it doesn’t rule out alternative hypotheses, only that those hypotheses are unsupported by evidence. This answer overextends the claim.

E. The stimulus does not clarify what motivates research. It only indicates that researchers receive recognition for overturning the consensus. There’s no suggestion that aligning with conventional wisdom, as in global warming research, would garner comparable recognition.

Weaken Questions:

You can usually recognize weaken questions by the way they’re phrased. Common wording includes:

• “Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?”
• “Which of the following, if true, would most undermine the author’s reasoning?” 

These cues tell you that your task is to identify an answer choice that introduces doubt about the strength of the conclusion. Your daily LSAT practice questions are just a few clicks away. Sign up now for weaken questions delivered right to your inbox.

To solve these LSAT questions effectively, start by reading the argument closely and identifying both the conclusion and the evidence. Once you have a clear grasp of the reasoning, ask yourself what the author is assuming. 

A good weaken answer will introduce new information that challenges this assumption or suggests that the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises. It might point out an alternative explanation, a missing piece of evidence, or a flaw in the logic.

Be cautious with answer choices that are out of scope, irrelevant to the conclusion, or that strengthen the argument. The correct choice will directly affect the logical link between the evidence and the conclusion, making the argument weaker overall.

Sample Question

“Scientist: Earth’s average annual temperature has increased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius over the last century. This warming is primarily the result of the buildup of minor gases in the atmosphere, blocking the outward flow of heat from the planet.”

‍Which one of the following, if true, would count as evidence against the scientist’s explanation of Earth’s warming?

(A) Only some of the minor gases whose presence in the atmosphere allegedly resulted in the phenomenon described by the scientist were produced by industrial pollution.
(B) Most of the warming occurred before 1940, while most of the buildup of minor gases in the atmosphere occurred after 1940.
(C) Over the last century, Earth received slightly more solar radiation in certain years than it did in others.
(D) Volcanic dust and other particles in the atmosphere reflect much of the Sun’s radiation back into space before it can reach Earth’s surface.
(E) The accumulation of minor gases in the atmosphere has been greater over the last century than at any other time in Earth’s history.

Answer:

A. The scientist never mentioned pollution, and the origin of the gases isn’t important to her conclusion. This choice tries to mislead you by invoking unrelated ideas like pollution and global warming. But the gases could just as easily come from natural sources.

B. Correct. This choice is effective because it highlights a mismatch in timing between the supposed cause and the observed effect. If the events happened at different times, it's unlikely the proposed cause is responsible, suggesting another factor led to the warming.

C. This is off-topic. A 0.5-degree rise is significant, and it’s doubtful that only a slight increase in solar radiation would cause such a change. Plus, the argument deals with long-term average temperatures. Some years may have more radiation, but that doesn’t explain a steady upward trend.

D. The argument links changes in atmospheric composition to temperature shifts. This option mentions volcanic particles but doesn’t indicate whether their presence has changed over time, so it doesn't address the core issue.

E. This somewhat reinforces the argument. A dramatic rise in minor atmospheric gases would logically boost their warming influence, supporting the scientist’s explanation.

Inference Questions:

These questions often begin with phrases like:

• “Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?”
• “Which one of the following must be true?”
• “The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?”

To approach inference questions effectively and boost your LSAT score, start by reading carefully and focusing on exactly what is stated. Remember, every word counts. Avoid bringing in outside knowledge or making assumptions that go beyond the information in the passage. 

Be especially cautious of answers that include exaggerations; strong language like “always,” “never,” “all,” or “none” is rarely correct unless it’s explicitly backed by the stimulus. On the other hand, answers that use softer qualifiers like “some,” “may,” “can,” or “often” are often more in line with what the passage supports.

As you consider each option, ask yourself: If everything in the passage is true, does this answer have to be true, too? If the answer is no, eliminate it.

Sample Question

“Modern science is built on the process of posing hypotheses and testing them against observations—in essence, attempting to show that the hypotheses are incorrect. Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom. It is accordingly unsurprising that some scientists are skeptical of the widely accepted predictions of global warming. What is instead remarkable is that with hundreds of researchers striving to make breakthroughs in climatology, very few find evidence that global warming is unlikely.”

The information above provides the most support for which one of the following statements?

(A) Most scientists who are reluctant to accept the global warming hypothesis are not acting in accordance with the accepted standards of scientific debate.
(B) Most researchers in climatology have substantial motive to find evidence that would discredit the global warming hypothesis.
(C) There is evidence that conclusively shows that the global warming hypothesis is true.
(D) Scientists who are skeptical about global warming have not offered any alternative hypotheses to explain climatological data.
(E) Research in global warming is primarily driven by a desire for recognition in the scientific community. 

Answer:

A. Incorrect. The stimulus doesn’t mention an “accepted standard of scientific debate.” This choice seems to introduce an idea related to “scientific consensus,” which, while often discussed in media coverage of global warming, isn’t referenced in the passage.

B. Correct. The stimulus supports this. It states that significant recognition comes from overturning widely accepted views. Since global warming predictions are broadly accepted, disproving them would challenge conventional wisdom, likely earning recognition. It's also reasonable to assume scientists value recognition for their work.

C. Incorrect. The fact that global warming predictions are widely accepted and haven’t been disproven doesn’t prove they are definitively true. A lack of disproof is not the same as conclusive proof.

D. Incorrect. This is a misleading option. The stimulus says no opposing evidence has been found, but that doesn't mean there are no alternative hypotheses, just that those hypotheses currently lack supporting evidence.

E. Incorrect. The passage doesn’t address what motivates research. It only notes that overturning conventional wisdom can bring recognition. It says nothing about the recognition gained from research that aligns with existing beliefs.

Flaw Questions:

You can usually identify flaw questions by how they’re worded. Prompts often ask which answer “most accurately describes a flaw in the argument” or point out that the reasoning is “most vulnerable to criticism.” 

These questions are about identifying a specific logical mistake. The LSAT tests your ability to see through persuasive language and find the gaps between premises and conclusions.

To confidently solve flaw questions, you need a structured approach. Start by breaking down the argument into its conclusion and supporting premises. Ask yourself: what is the author trying to prove, and how are they trying to prove it? 

Next, look for common patterns of flawed reasoning. Some of the most frequent include mistaking correlation for causation, making overly broad generalizations, relying on circular reasoning, presenting false dilemmas, and confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. 

Once you've broken the argument apart and identified potential flaws, try to anticipate the flaw before reading the answer choices. This step prevents you from falling for tempting but incorrect options. Then, as you read through the choices, match their abstract phrasing to the specific flaw you identified.

Pay close attention to wording; correct answers will often describe the flaw in precise, logical terms. If two answers seem plausible, go with the one that most directly and accurately pinpoints the flaw in reasoning.

Sample Question

“All Labrador retrievers bark a great deal. All Saint Bernards bark infrequently. Each of Rosa’s dogs is a cross between a Labrador retriever and a Saint Bernard. Therefore, Rosa’s dogs are moderate barkers.”

Which one of the following uses flawed reasoning that most closely resembles the flawed reasoning used in the argument above?

(A) All students who study diligently make good grades. But some students who do not study diligently also make good grades. Jane studies somewhat diligently. Therefore, Jane makes somewhat good grades. 

(B) All type A chemicals are extremely toxic to human beings. All type B chemicals are nontoxic to human beings. This household cleaner is a mixture of a type A chemical and a type B chemical. Therefore, this household cleaner is moderately toxic. 

(C) All students at Hanson School live in Green County. All students at Edwards School live in Winn County. Members of the Perry family attend both Hanson and Edwards. Therefore, some members of the Perry family live in Green County and some live in Winn County. 

(D) All transcriptionists know shorthand. All engineers know calculus. Bob has worked both as a transcriptionist and as an engineer. Therefore, Bob knows both shorthand and calculus. 

(E) All of Kenisha’s dresses are very well made. All of Connie’s dresses are very badly made. Half of the dresses in this closet are very well made, and half of them are very badly made. Therefore, half of the dresses in this closet are Kenisha’s and half of them are Connie’s.

Answer:

A. This is a tempting option, but it falls short. It uses a vague “some” statement and fails to establish a clear link between lack of diligence and very bad grades. To parallel the stimulus, we’d need something like: Diligent students get good grades. Non-diligent students get bad grades. Therefore, somewhat diligent students get somewhat good grades. That structure isn't here.

B. CORRECT. This is a perfect match. The reasoning mirrors the original:
Type A = Labrador retriever (non-barker)
Type B = Saint Bernard (barker)
So a mix of the two leads to a dog that barks moderately, just like in the original argument, where the blend of two extremes produced a midpoint trait.

C. This doesn’t align. The original stimulus focused on individuals who are half of each type. This answer describes two different people from two places, rather than one person being half from each. A better match would be: “Each Perry family member lives half in Green County, half in Winn County.”

D. Close, but not quite. To match the flawed reasoning, this should say: “Transcriptionists write shorthand. Engineers write only calculus. Bob is half engineer, half transcriptionist—so he writes half shorthand, half calculus.” That would mirror the structure of combining traits from two distinct roles.

E. Like C, this fails to merge the traits within a single entity. It talks about different dresses, but doesn’t combine elements within one, as the stimulus did with the dog's behavior.

Contrapositive Questions:

To identify contrapositive questions, look for conditional logic (if/then structures) and prompts that ask for logically equivalent statements, necessary conditions, or valid deductions.

To solve them, identify the original conditional statement, reverse the order of the terms, and negate both terms. Ensure you don’t confuse the converse (which is not logically equivalent) with the contrapositive.

Accurate diagramming can help, but even without symbols, focus on internalizing the flip-and-negate rule. The best way to master these questions is with daily practice. Thankfully, our LSAT Question of the Day delivers authentic questions right to your inbox.

Sample Question

“An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.”

The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed? 

(A) Anyone with a master’s degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the executive board. 

(B) Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. 

(C) An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator. 

(D) If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator. 

(E) The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator.

Answer:

A. This provides sufficient conditions for board appointment. If we take the contrapositive, it reads:
Not eligible for board → No master’s degree or felony conviction. That’s not helpful. We already know Murray has a felony conviction, which explains his ineligibility. This adds nothing new to support or challenge the conclusion.

B. CORRECT. This fills the logical gap. If being eligible for Executive Administrator requires eligibility for the board, and Murray isn’t eligible for the board due to his felony, then he can’t be Executive Administrator either.
Diagram: Executive Admin eligible → Board eligible
Murray ≠ Board eligible → Murray ≠ Executive Admin eligible

C. This misses the point. Just because a master’s degree isn’t required for the position doesn’t mean having one is irrelevant. It’s like saying, “Sarah scored a 180 on the LSAT. That’s not required for law school, so she won’t get in.” The logic doesn’t follow.

D. This is a flawed negation. It assumes that because someone is ineligible, the felony must be the reason. But there could be other disqualifying factors. So it doesn’t directly support the conclusion.

E. This weakly implies that a felony might be disqualifying, but doesn’t prove that it always is. The conclusion requires a definitive link, not just a possibility.

Conditional Reasoning Questions:

To identify a conditional reasoning question, look for keywords like if, only if, unless, must, requires, or guarantees. These signal that the question relies on formal logic.

Once identified, follow these steps:

• Step 1: Translate the statement into standard “if A, then B” format.
  
• Step 2: Find the contrapositive by reversing and negating both conditions.
  
• Step 3: Avoid mistaken reversals or negations, which are common trap answers.
  
• Step 4: Apply conditional logic to draw valid conclusions or evaluate argument structure.

Diagramming can help when multiple conditions are linked together.

Sample Question

“Economist: Every business strives to increase its productivity, for this increases profits for the owners and the likelihood that the business will survive. But not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole. Often, attempts to increase productivity decrease the number of employees, which clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees.”

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the economist’s argument? 

(A) If an action taken to secure the survival of a business fails to enhance the welfare of the business’s employees, that action cannot be good for the business as a whole. 

(B) Some measures taken by a business to increase productivity fail to be beneficial to the business as a whole. 

(C) Only if the employees of a business are also its owners will the interests of the employees and owners coincide, enabling measures that will be beneficial to the business as a whole. 

(D) There is no business that does not make efforts to increase its productivity. 

(E) Decreasing the number of employees in a business undermines the sense of security of retained employees.

Answer:

A. This is not the conclusion, and it’s an extreme and illogical claim. On the LSAT, you must interpret statements literally, as if the author fully endorses them even in extreme scenarios. Taken to an extreme, this choice becomes unreasonable.
Example: “This move saved the company and will generate $1 trillion in profits, but it didn’t benefit employees, so it’s bad for business.” That’s clearly irrational.

B. Correct. This directly reflects the conclusion. The phrasing “But not all…are beneficial” is equivalent to “some measures…fail,” meaning “some are not,” which aligns with the author’s main point.

C. This goes beyond what the author actually says. It’s too extreme. The author may allow for situations where the interests of owners and employees align, so this statement overreaches.

D. This rephrases the opening statement, using a double negative. It’s part of the argument’s background, not the conclusion. It sets the stage but doesn’t express the main point.

E. This is a supporting premise. The conclusion is drawn from it, i.e., “therefore, some productivity measures may not benefit the business overall.”

Assumption Questions:

You can recognize Assumption questions by keywords in the question stem, such as:

• "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?"
• "The argument relies on which of the following assumptions?"
• "The conclusion logically depends on which assumption?"

All LSAT assumption questions fall into one of two types: necessary or sufficient. Necessary assumption questions ask what must be true for the argument to work, while sufficient assumption questions ask what, if true, would make the argument fully valid.

Once you’ve identified the question type, start by breaking down the argument: pinpoint the conclusion and the supporting evidence. Then, look for the logical gap; ask yourself, “What must be true for this evidence to support the conclusion?” This gap points directly to the assumption. 

A powerful tool at this stage is the Negation Test: for necessary assumption questions, try negating each answer choice. If negating it weakens or destroys the argument, that’s a strong sign it’s the correct answer.

Be cautious of extreme language. Assumptions are usually more moderate in tone. The correct choice is something the argument quietly relies on, not a bold or sweeping claim. On test day, sticking to this method gives you a clear plan of attack and helps you stay focused and efficient, even under pressure

Sample Question

“An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray,

an accountant with both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.”

The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Anyone with a master’s degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the executive board.

(B) Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.

(C) An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator.

(D) If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.

(E) The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator.

Answer:

A. This option provides sufficient conditions for board eligibility. Its contrapositive is: not eligible for board → no master’s degree or felony conviction. That’s unhelpful; it simply confirms that if someone isn’t eligible, it could be due to either reason. Since we already know Murray has a felony, this adds nothing new.

B. Correct. If this statement is true, it links eligibility for Executive Administrator to eligibility for the board. Given Murray can’t be on the board due to his conviction, he also can't be Executive Administrator.

C. The diagram here is: Executive Administrator eligibility → board eligibility and it only tells us that if someone is eligible to be Executive Administrator, they must also be eligible for the board. Murray isn’t eligible for the board, but that doesn’t definitively rule him out from being Executive Administrator unless the conditional flows the other way.

D. This reflects a flawed logical negation. Just because having a felony isn’t necessarily disqualifying doesn’t mean it’s never disqualifying. The conclusion still could hold true, but this doesn't prove or disprove it.

E. Again, this doesn’t establish the felony as an absolute disqualifier for the Executive Administrator role. It’s possible Murray would be ineligible regardless. So this answer fails to support the conclusion.

Reading Comprehension Sample Question

As you begin practicing for the LSAT, you should do your best to become familiar with the common RC question types. Each question type should be approached differently to get the most accurate answers.

Big Idea Questions

Big idea questions will ask you to choose the answer that describes the author’s main point. These questions are typically the easiest, but can still be tricky! Some of these answers will be explicit, and some implicit, so you must have a good grasp of what the author is trying to argue.

To figure out the main point the author is trying to convey, you’ll have to look at the structure of the question. Main points are always the ones that are most supported by the other parts of the passage.

If you believe you’ve figured out the main point, see whether it has evidence supporting it. If it seems the rest of the paragraph is supporting this one claim, it’s likely the main point. However, if it seems the point you’ve chosen is actually evidence supporting another claim, it’s likely not the main point. 

Sample questions of this RC question type include:

• “The primary purpose of this passage is to…”
• “Which of the following describes the author’s main/central idea?”
• “Which one of the following questions is central to both passages?”
• “What would be an appropriate title for this passage?”

What’s Stated Questions

These types of questions will ask you to recognize parts of the text that are stated on a literal, explicit level. The answers to these questions will typically be a close paraphrase of a part of the passage. 

You should focus on the idea behind what’s stated rather than the particular wording of it. Focusing on the vocabulary can cause you to choose an answer that has similar wording but a different meaning. 

Examples of these questions are:

• “Which of the following does the passage list as a reason to own a dog?”
• “Which of the following is mentioned in passage A but not B as a reason for global warming?”

Meaning Questions

These LSAT reading comprehension questions ask you to determine what a certain word or phrase means in the passage. 

Meaning questions can be misleading because students may think they’re being asked to simply define the word or phrase. However, you are meant to contextually describe the meaning of the words/phrases according to the author. 

Sample questions include:

• “The phrase stating ‘pricing pattern’ most likely refers to a pricing pattern...”
• “Which of the following comes closest to the meaning of the word ‘object’ in the fourth line?”
• “In passage B, which of the following is an example of ‘rules’ as that term is used in the first paragraph of paragraph A?”

You may also be asked to find a replacement word or synonym for certain terms in the passage. Such questions will be phrased like “If substituted for the word… in line…, which of the following would convey the same meaning?”

Function Questions

Function questions ask why the author included specific phrases, ideas, or words in the passage and what their function is concerning the larger point being argued. The majority of the time, the terms being questioned act as supporting evidence for the main point. 

The best way to find the answer is to look at the terms in comparison to the main point and see how they fit into the overall argument. What do they add to the argument? How is the argument changed without them?

Examples of function questions include:

• “The author refers to ‘tigers’ in line four in order to…”
• “The author quotes Doctor Smith in the third sentence in order to…”
• “Both passages mention propaganda in order to…”

Structure Questions

Structure questions ask you to identify the role of different parts of the essay and how they work together. To properly answer these questions, you must understand the structure of the passage(s), know the main point, and the evidence used to back up this point. 

You must also identify the relationships between certain parts of the passage. For instance, one paragraph may provide recent evidence to back up the claim being made, while the other may present outdated evidence that refutes the claim.

Pay attention to the order of the structure as well. For instance, if the author makes their main point in the final paragraph, an incorrect yet tempting answer choice may say the author makes it in a different part of the text. 

Common examples of these questions include:

• “What is the primary purpose of paragraph one?”
• “Which one of the following most accurately describes the organization of the paragraphs?”
• “Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the argument made in passage A and the argument made in passage B?”

Inference Questions

There are multiple types of inference questions you’ll see on test day. For all of these questions, it’s important to focus on language and see the degree to which the author makes their main claim. 

For instance, if they use words like “must” or “always,” they strongly agree; if they use words like “sometimes” or “may,” the degree of their argumentation is not as strong. The correct answer will have the same degree of certainty. 

While these are inference questions, you won’t have to jump through hoops to find your answer. The correct answer will always be the one that is most supported by the evidence presented in the passage. 

Inferences On the Author’s Views

These questions ask you to pick a side, point, or opinion that you could reasonably infer the author or group of people in the passage would agree or disagree with. 

Typical question examples are:

• “Which one of the following views about school uniforms do you believe the author would agree with?”
• “The authors of both passages would most likely disagree with…”

Inferences About Information

These types of LSAT reading comprehension questions focus on what can be inferred by particular information or facts within the passage(s). These questions ask what else could be or must be true according to the facts presented and require test-takers to make strong inferences.

Sample questions include:

• “Which of the following is most supported by the information in the passage?”
• “The passage suggests which one of the following is most likely to be true?”
• “Which one of the following can be inferred from both of the passages?”

Inferences About Attitudes

These questions are not to be mistaken for inferences about views. They are simply asking what the author’s attitude would be towards a thing, idea, or person mentioned in the passage. 

This type of inference question requires you to first decipher if the author has a positive or negative attitude towards what’s being asked about and how strong this attitude is. If they show a strong negative attitude, then a choice that contains the right ideas but a neutral tone is incorrect. 

You can expect to see questions such as:

• “Which of the following best describes the author’s attitude towards video games?”
• “The author of passage A’s attitude towards going to private school is different from author B’s in that it is less…”

Application Questions

These questions tend to be tricky because they ask you to apply the principles discussed in the passage to a different, new context. You must focus on picking out the main ideas in the passage that can be easily transferred to other texts. Rephrase the points to make them more general so you can more easily match the ideas.

Application question examples are:

• Which of the following is most clearly an example of an application of the principle “look before you leap,” as it is discussed in the passage?
• Which one of the following conforms to the policy advocated by the author of passage A but not advocated by the author of passage B?

Principle/Analogy Questions

These questions will ask you to consider a particular part of the text and find which answer choice is similar. You may be asked to determine a principle or to pick the choice that has an analogous scenario as the one described in the passage(s).

To answer these questions, you must understand the main points described in the text and rule out any choices that don’t match.

Example questions are:

• “As described in the last paragraph of the passage, the cosmologists' approach to solving the dark matter problem is most analogous to which one of the following?”
• “Which one of the following principles is most likely to be endorsed by both authors?”

Improvement Questions

These RC questions ask you to decide which answer choice can either strengthen or weaken the claim made in the passage if it were added to it.

Remember, these answer choices don’t have to refute or confirm the claim being made. They must simply make the argument stronger or weaker, even if just by a little bit. There will be certain answer choices that have no real impact on the argument at all. Keep an eye out for these incorrect choices!

Samples of these questions are:

• “Which of the following, if true, would most seriously strengthen the author’s claim that global warming doesn’t exist?”
• “Which one of the following, if true, would cast doubt on the argument made in passage A and support the argument made in passage B?”

Main Purpose

Main purpose questions will ask you to identify the purpose of the passage(s) as a whole. These are more overarching questions and shouldn’t be confused with big idea questions that ask what the central idea is itself. 

Ask why the passage was written in the first place and what purpose it serves to find your answer. Try to come up with your own answer before looking at the choices and seeing if any match!

These questions tend to be worded as:

• “The passage is primarily concerned with…”
• “Which of the following is a central purpose common to both passages?”

‍

The final section of the LSAT is reading comprehension. Here’s how to answer these questions: 

Step One: Read the Questions

Reading comprehension passages are long, so you won’t have time to reread them. A common strategy students use is to first read all of the questions to know what to look out for before reading the passage. 

Passage: The painter Roy Lichtenstein helped to define pop art—the movement that incorporated commonplace objects and commercial-art techniques into paintings—by paraphrasing the style of comic books in his work. 

His merger of a popular genre with the forms and intentions of fine art generated a complex result: while poking fun at the pretensions of the art world, Lichtenstein’s work also managed to convey a seriousness of theme that enabled it to transcend mere parody.

That Lichtenstein’s images were fine art was at first difficult to see, because, with their word balloons and highly stylized figures, they looked like nothing more than the comic book panels from which they were copied.

Standard art history holds that pop art emerged as an impersonal alternative to the histrionics of abstract expressionism, a movement in which painters conveyed their private attitudes and emotions using nonrepresentational techniques. 

The truth is that by the time pop art first appeared in the early 1960s, abstract expressionism had already lost much of its force.

Pop art painters weren’t quarreling with the powerful early abstract expressionist work of the late 1940s but with a second generation of abstract expressionists whose work seemed airy, high-minded, and overly lyrical. Pop art paintings were full of simple black lines and large areas of primary color.

Lichtenstein’s work was part of a general rebellion against the fading emotional power of abstract expressionism, rather than an aloof attempt to ignore it.

But if rebellion against previous art by means of the careful imitation of a popular genre were all that characterized Lichtenstein’s work, it would possess only the reflective power that parodies have in relation to their subjects.

Beneath its cartoonish methods, his work displayed an impulse toward realism, an urge to say that what was missing from contemporary painting was the depiction of contemporary life. 

The stilted romances and war stories portrayed in the comic books on which he based his canvases, the stylized automobiles, hot dogs, and table lamps that appeared in his pictures, were reflections of the culture Lichtenstein inhabited. 

But, in contrast to some pop art, Lichtenstein’s work exuded not a jaded cynicism about consumer culture, but a kind of deliberate naiveté, intended as a response to the excess of sophistication he observed not only in the later abstract expressionists but in some other pop artists. 

With the comics—typically the domain of youth and innocence—as his reference point, a nostalgia fills his paintings that gives them, for all their surface bravado, an inner sweetness. 

His persistent use of comic-art conventions demonstrates a faith in reconciliation, not only between cartoons and fine art, but between parody and true feeling.

Question: Which one of the following best captures the author’s attitude toward Lichtenstein’s work?

1. enthusiasm for its more rebellious aspects
2. respect for its successful parody of youth and innocence
3. pleasure in its blatant rejection of abstract expressionism
4. admiration for its subtle critique of contemporary culture
5. appreciation for its ability to incorporate both realism and naiveté

Step Two: Annotate

Since we know we’re looking for the author's attitude toward Lichtenstein’s work, we can now properly annotate the text.

In our example, we’ve underlined every instance where the author demonstrates his attitude towards Lichtenstein’s work. While he mentions multiple positive aspects of Lichtenstein’s work, he often negates them by arguing his work was not defined by these aspects. For instance, he says his work was more than just parody and rebellion.

On the other hand, there are aspects he does not negate. These are marked with checkmarks.

Step Three: Eliminate Wrong Answers

For reading comprehension questions, correct answers won’t typically pop out at you right away, so you’ll typically have to go through a process of elimination. For this question, we’ll use the process of elimination: 

• A is incorrect: the author only briefly mentions rebellion and says his work would be reduced if his rebellion was all that was focused on
• B is incorrect: the author says his work is more than just mere parody
• C is incorrect: again, rebellion against traditional pop art is not the main focus of Lichtenstein’s work
• D is incorrect: the author states the opposite by claiming his work did depict contemporary life
• E is correct: The answer contains two of the aspects that the author does not negate and only comments positively on

You should always read all of the answer choices before making a final decision for RC questions. Tempting yet incorrect questions commonly appear right before the correct ones in these types of questions!

Question #1

Question: The author most likely lists some of the themes and objects influencing and appearing in Lichtenstein’s paintings (middle of the last paragraph) primarily to:

1. show that the paintings depict aspects of contemporary life
2. support the claim that Lichtenstein’s work was parodic in intent
3. contrast Lichtenstein’s approach to art with that of abstract expressionism
4. suggest the emotions that lie at the heart of Lichtenstein’s work
5. endorse Lichtenstein’s attitude toward consumer culture

Step One: Identify the Context

• Locate the sentence in the passage that lists the themes and objects influencing Lichtenstein's paintings.
• Understand what the author says immediately before and after this sentence.

Step Two: Analyze the Purpose

• Determine why the author mentions these themes and objects. What argument or point is the author making?
• Consider how these themes and objects relate to the overall argument about Lichtenstein's work.

Step Three: Cross-Reference with Explanation

• Understand why each incorrect choice is not suitable.
• Confirm why the correct choice matches the context and the author's intention.

Step Four: Select the Correct Answer

The correct answer is (A) 

• The author lists themes and objects to show they are reflections of the culture Lichtenstein inhabited, emphasizing the depiction of contemporary life.

Question #2

Question: The primary purpose of the passage is most likely to:

1. Express curiosity about an artist’s work.
2. Clarify the motivation behind an artist’s work.
3. Contrast two opposing theories about an artist’s work.
4. Describe the evolution of an artist’s work.
5. Refute a previous overestimation of an artist’s work.

Step One: Identify the Main Argument

• Read the entire passage to grasp the main point the author is making.
• Identify key phrases and sentences that reveal the author's purpose.

Step Two: Analyze the Argument Structure

• Consider how the author builds their argument about Lichtenstein's work.
• Note any conclusions or summaries that encapsulate the passage’s purpose.

Step Three: Cross-Reference with Explanation

• Understand why each incorrect choice is not suitable.
• Confirm why the correct choice aligns with the overall purpose of the passage.
  

Step Four: Select the Correct Answer

The correct answer is  (B)

• The passage aims to clarify the motivation behind Lichtenstein’s work, highlighting both the parodic elements and the serious depiction of contemporary life.

By following these steps, you can systematically arrive at the correct answers for both questions.

Take our free LSAT Sample Question Pop Quiz to test your skills!