LSAT Lab

Sufficient Assumption
Question Stem Keywords Prephrase Goal
if assumed, conclusion follows logically, conclusion is Solve for the correct answer ahead of time!
properly drawn, conclusion is properly inferred
Most of the time we're pre-phrasing a conditional idea,
trying to get f​ rom ​this idea, t​ o ​that idea.
Examples The correct answer loves to put that connection in
Which of the following, if assumed, would allow the contrapositive form, so if we're thinking,
conclusion to follow logically? "I need to hear that g
​ olfing requires money​"
then we remind ourselves that it might sound like
The conclusion above is properly drawn if which of the "​if you don't have money, you can't golf
following is assumed?

Reading Goal Correct Answer

Which answer, when added to the evidence,
Find the Conclusion. Find the Support.
guarantees the truth of the conclusion?

Ask yourself if there's a New Term or idea in the

Correct answer will do one of these things:
Conclusion. (If so, that idea needs to be in the correct
- provide the missing link that completes a chain of
answer).
ideas
- provide the missing fact that triggers a conditional
Ask yourself what the Evidence told us about each half
- rule out the one possible way the conclusion could
of the conclusion. (if the conclusion were "Eddie is a
be wrong
great friend", look to see what facts were provided
- create a situation where whether X is true or X is
about Eddie, and look to see if they provided a rule
false, the conclusion is true.
that says "If X, then Great Friend")

If there is conditional logic, mentally or physically

diagram it. Link conditionals together where possible. Wrong Answers
Right Ideas, Wrong Order​ -illegal negations or
Think about the missing conditional piece you would reversals of the link we were seeking
need to get from the Subject of the conclusion (Eddie)
to the Predicate (is a great friend). Lacks Crucial Term​ - most commonly this means that
the answer lacks the undefined New Idea in the
If there isn't conditional logic, try to think of the one conclusion, so it's powerless to prove that New Idea.
way that Conclusion ​wouldn't ​be true. The correct
answer would need to rule out that possibility. Too Weak​ - we have to fully prove the conclusion, so
"some" or "most" ain't usually gonna cut it.
 2

Stimulus Tendencies Either Carrie or Brad must get coffee for any staff
Often shorter arguments with obvious conclusion or meeting. Since there is a staff meeting tomorrow
premise indicator words. Lots of conditional logic is morning, Brad will have to get coffee tomorrow
involved in these arguments. Sometimes math-y stuff. morning. (​SA: Carrie can’t get the coffee tomorrow​)

​common forms CONDITIONAL CHAINS

......... A
​ is B​...... . ........​ A is B​.............. ​A is B. Clowns should be excommunicated, for scary things
......... B​ is C​..... . ......... B
​ is C ​........ .....​ Y is Z.​...... are a nuisance and all clowns are scary.
Thus, A is Z.​... ​ Thus, X is C.​..... ​ Thus, A is Z. (​SA: nuisance → should be excommunicated​)

​ sufficient assumption Buying something impractical requires a firm

........ .​C is Z.​.......... ...​ X is A.​.......... ....​ B is Y. .​ ... commitment to having fun. Thus, buying a hoverboard
is evidence that one is a child at heart, since people
Older versions of Sufficient Assumption were pretty who are firmly committed to having fun are still
consistent in using verbatim words and phrases children at heart. (​SA: hoverboard → impractical​)
multiple times in order to clearly connect the dots.
UNIVERSALIZE THE EVIDENCE
More modern examples might ask us to equate a word We shouldn’t accuse Harry of being ungrateful, since
and its definition like seeing “possessing more money Thomas behaved in a similar fashion and we didn’t
and property” as a match for “wealthier”, or accuse Thomas of being ungrateful.
“cautiously weighing the evidence before making a (​SA: we should judge all cases of ungrateful the
decision” as a match for “prudent”. same way​)

EXAMPLES Hakeem is a lawyer, and he is very verbose. Hence, it

must be that all lawyers are verbose.
BRIDGE IDEA: If Prem, then Conc (​SA: if true of Hakeem, then true of all lawyers​)

Humans are amazing. After all, humans invented roller Sonya was just crying due to someone stepping on her
coasters. (​SA: invented RC’s → Amazing​) foot. Thus, those who say Sonya was crying the other
day because she was homesick must be wrong.
It is well known that Teslas are the most fuel efficient (​SA: Sonya’s crying always has the same cause​)
sports car available. Thus, the best sports car available
is a Tesla. (​SA: most fuel efficient → best​)

MISSING FACT:
Only people well versed with “Game of Thrones” are
invited to Tommy’s party on Sunday. Thus, Shelly must
not be invited. (​SA: Shelly doesn’t know GoH well.​)

If it rains on Thursday, then I won’t be able to play

basketball, which was going to be my only exercise
this week. Getting at least some exercise every week
was my New Year’s Resolution. So, evidently I’m not
going to be able to keep my New Year’s Resolution.
(​SA: it’s gonna rain on Thursday​)
 LSAT Lab

Necessary Assumption
Question Stem Keywords Prephrase Goal
assumption, depends, relies, requires, must be Because of the mixed bag nature of Necessary
assumed, assumes, presupposes, takes for granted Assumption arguments, we'll find that sometimes we
have a very specific idea we're looking for (if there’s a
language gap we need to link together).
Examples
Which of the following is an assumption on which the Other times we'll have a f​ unctional g
​ oal for the
argument depends? answer, but not specific wording.

The author assumes which of the following? If an author is relying on a comparison, we might
think, "Let's look for an answer that rules out a
Which of the following is an assumption on which the significant difference between the two things".
argument relies?

If an author is concluding that X is the explanation for

some Curious Fact, we might think, "Let's look for an
Reading Goal answer that rules out an alternate explanation or that
Find the Conclusion. Find the Support. provides some fact that must be true for X to be a
plausible explanation".
Ask yourself if there's a New Term or idea in the
Conclusion. (If so, that idea will almost always be in the
Necessary Assumptions are the opposite of Objections.
correct answer)
If we would object to an author, "hey, maybe those two

If there is any conditional logic, or chain of ideas, or people are twins!", then we can say the argument was
repeated ideas, then this problem is probably testing a assuming "those two people are not twins".
missing link or fact.
If we could tell an author was assuming "Jack likes
If there is conditional logic, mentally or physically cookies", then we could object to that argument by
diagram it. Link conditionals together where possible. saying "Jack doesn't like cookies".
Think about the missing conditional piece you would
need to get from the Subject of the conclusion (Eddie)
So in some cases, we read a Necessary Assumption
to the Predicate (is a great friend).
paragraph and can already hear something the author
is assuming. In those cases, that's our pre-phrase.
If there isn't conditional logic, switch into debate
mode: G ​ IVEN the evidence, HOW COULD WE ARGUE Other times, we don't hear an assumption, so we
that the conclusion is wrong​? switch into debating mode and try to think of a
possible objection. If we come up with Objection X,
then we can pre-phrase, "Okay, the author is assuming
that Objection X is not true."
 2

Correct Answer Wrong Answers

There are a few different ways to think about what Too Strong / Specific​ - we're accusing the author of
makes a Necessary Assumption answer correct. assuming the answer we pick, so we don't want to
They're all valid in all cases, but you may find that it's accuse them of something harsh or crazy sounding
easier to process a correct answer using one (unless they sounded that crazy, and they usually
formulation vs. another, depending on the problem: don't). Just like in Most Supported and Reading Comp,
● Which answer, when negated, most weakens words like m
​ ost, typically, usually, tends to,
the argument?
generally, primarily, rarely​ ​are usually wrong.
● Which answer can clearly be derived from the
author's thinking?
Out of Scope​ - we're not speculating on what else the
● Which answer shows a move that the author
author might believe. If we didn't talk about it, then
clearly made?
the author hasn't made any assumptions about it. (The
one exception being that in causal arguments the
The first one is well suited to answers with the word
author will be assuming that some o ​ ther explanation
"not" in them, answers that are ruling out Objections.
that we didn't talk about is n
​ ot ​the actual causal
explanation)
The second one is well suited to answers that are
patching together a language gap, or to answers that
Opposite / Backwards Logic​ - Words that imply
assume a relevant similarity or that assume a basic
certainty are conditional, so we can evaluate those
plausibility to an author's hypothesis.
answers by comparing their conditional logic to the
reasoning flow of the argument. Much of the time,
The third one is well suited to conditional logic answer
these answers will be illegally reversing or flipping the
choices.
logic.

Weak language ​is our friend. Correct answers

There are lots of Fake Opposite answers that also just
frequently have watered down phrasings like "some,
flip a premise. If an author said that "tall children love
sometimes, can, may, might, not all, not always".
their moms”, a trap answer will say “small children
don’t love their moms”. We can't do that. You can
Ruling-out ​language is also our friend. Many correct
affirm something is true for one situation without
answers use the word n​ ot​, next to the verb,​ ​to rule out
implying that the opposite is true for an opposite
some fact.
situation.

Conditional logic ​is very common in correct answers

Weakens​ - Some wrong answers are actually
on more modern tests. Consider how the rule would
objections. The correct answer, when n
​ egated​, should
look if diagrammed and see if it matches a move that
weaken. But an answer, as stated, should never
the author made from one idea to another (often you’ll
weaken.
need to contrapose it from how it’s written in the
answer choice to better match the flow of the
argument).
 3

Stimulus Tendencies Negating Answers

Necessary Assumption is a real mixed-bag. Probably One of the most reliable ways to get Necessary
60% of them are testing us on Idea Math, seeing if we Assumption answers correct is to get good at the
notice a missing piece in the author's logic, similar to Negation Test: the correct answer, if negated, badly
what we're doing on Sufficient Assumption and weakens the argument. An incorrect answer, if
Principle-Justify questions. The other 40% are really negated, doesn't weaken the argument.
testing us on Possible Objections, seeing if we can
think of a way to accept the author's evidence but Negating a claim means c ​ ontradicting it in the most
reject her conclusion, similar to what we're doing on minimal fashion​. The negation of "All my friends are
Flaw, Strengthen, and Weaken. honest" isn't "None of my friends are honest", it's "at
least one of my friends is not honest". There are a few
When we see C ​ onditional​ logic, other chains of ideas, standards to go by when negating:
or repeated ideas, (i.e. ​going to a museum​ c ​ alms your
soul​, and a ​calm soul​ finds it easier to think​. t​ hus, - Don't negate every single answer as you read them.
going to a museum​ makes you more likely solve a Try to get rid of some for easier reasons like Out of
difficult problem​), that's usually a strong sign that the Scope or Too Strong wording. Use the negation test
correct answer will simply connect ideas that were more to confirm the answer you're picking.
only mentioned once (​you're more likely to solve a
difficult problem if it's easier to think​). - If the truth value of an answer hinges on a quantity
word, f.e. "Some clowns are scary", then negate the
When we see arguments that are using C ​ omparison quantity term. Know your quantity yin-yangs (Some vs.
or C
​ ausal​ reasoning structures, then it's more likely None / All vs. Not all / Most vs. Not-Most, i.e. 51% vs. 49%
that the correct answer is testing our ability to see / Many vs. Not-Many / Sometimes vs. Never)
where potential objections could arise.
- If the truth value hinges on the word n ​ ot​, then just
When an argument is c ​ omparative​ in nature, the remove the n ​ ot, f​ .e. negating "Taking the vacation will
author often needs to assume two things are not deplete Luke's savings" gives us "taking the
relevantly similar or needs to assume there's a vacation w ​ ill d
​ eplete his savings".
meaningful difference between the option they're
choosing and the one they're rejecting. - If the truth value hinges on the verb, negate the verb,
f.e. negating "Washing dishes dries out your hands"
When an argument is c ​ ausal​ in nature (i.e. the gives us "Washing dishes d ​ oes not dry out y
​ our
author's conclusion involves one possible causal hands".
explanation for some curious background fact), the
author needs to assume that her explanation achieves - If the answer is conditional, don't negate it. Negating
minimal standards of plausibility and, assuming the a conditional does not give you a conditional. If gives
author's conclusion sounds pretty sure of itself, the you one counterexample, in which the trigger
author needs to assume that there is ​not ​some other happens but the outcome does not. Instead of
way to explain the background fact. negating conditional answers, just mentally or
physically diagram the If / Then statement and ask
If an author is rebutting someone's position, she needs yourself if the author's argument made that move.
to assume that the reason she offers for her rebuttal Most of these will be wrong because they'll be
actually conflicts with the position she's trying to Backwards or Opposite logic.
reject. If an author is rejecting a conditional, she needs
to provide a situation where the trigger occurred, but
the outcome did not.
 LSAT Lab

Flaw
One framework that usually works is, "Just because
Question Stem Keywords your Premise is true, doesn't mean your Conclusion is
true". You might not realize you're reading a Part to
vulnerable to criticism, flaw, questionable reasoning,
Whole flaw, but you can help your brain get closer to it
errors of reasoning
by saying, "Just because e​ ach member of the team is
efficient​ doesn't mean that ​the team will be efficient​".
If it says, “the argument is most vulnerable to criticism
because it t​ akes for granted that​”, it’s the same as
Necessary Assumption. Correct Answer
Ask two questions of the correct answer:
If it says, “the argument is most vulnerable to criticism
- Is this d
​ escriptively accurate​? (If not, eliminate)
because it f​ ails to consider that​”, it’s the same as
- Is this a l​ ogical problem​ with going from Premise to
Weaken.
Conclusion? (if not, eliminate)

The answers describe the problem with the argument

Examples in three basic ways. They call out an Assumption, raise
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism because . a potential Objection, or Describe a Bad Move..

Fred commits which of the following errors of The argument is flawed because ...
reasoning? - the author assumes X (​Assumptions​)
- isn't it possible that Y is true? (​Objection​)
The publicist's reasoning is flawed because she ... - the author did this no-no (​Bad Move​))

Ask different questions depending on phrasing:

Reading Goal ASSUMPTION t​ akes for granted, presumes, assumes,

At its simplest, Flaw just wants us to read some fails to establish that X
confused blowhard's crappy argument and say, Was t​ he author ​Assuming​ this,
"Objection, Dr. Stupid did this." or is this Too Strong / Out of Scope?

Thus, try to read the argument and respond with an OBJECTION i​ gnores/overlooks/neglects the
objection, that feels like “Just because your Evidence is possibility, fails to consider that X
true, that doesn’t mean you can draw ​that Would t​ his be an ​Objection​,
Conclusion.” or is it Too Weak / Irrelevant to the Conclusion?

Is there a distinction the author isn't perceiving? BAD MOVE c ​ oncludes X on the grounds that Y,
Is something too strong? Is something irrelevant? confuses Y with X, infers on the basis of Y that X,
Does the author's thinking feel like it's cheating in takes for granted that X because Y,
some way? fails to consider that even if Y, may not be X
Can w ​ e ​Match t​ he two ideas in this answer to
Around 30-40% of these involve one of the top ten to the Evidence and the Conclusion/Assumption?
Famous Flaws​.
 2

Famous Flaws Wrong Answers

There are about a baker's dozen F ​ amous Flaws​ that
Too Strong​ - the assumption answers are very often
show up a lot, especially within the answer choices:
too strong. So many wrong answers accuse the author
Necessary vs. Sufficient -​ ​ t​ aking a conditional of t​ aking for granted s​ ome strongly worded claim. A
relationship and but then illegally thinking through it lot of them also say the author concluded X m
​ erely o
​ n
in backwards or opposite fashion. the basis of Y. That means that Y was the only shred of
Causal​ - overconfidently concluding one possible evidence, and that's frequently not the case.
causal interpretation of a curious fact, usually a Bad Match​ - so many answers are descriptively
Correlation, when other possible interpretations exist inaccurate. Either the premise language in the answer
Part vs. Whole ​- Assuming that a trait that is true of
doesn't resemble the actual evidence, the conclusion
each Part of a collective is therefore true of the Whole,
language in the answer doesn't resemble the actual
or vice versa.
conclusion, or both. As soon as you find a mismatching
Unproven vs. Proven False ​- Pointing out that
someone failed to prove X is true, and then concluding part, you should bail from that answer.
that this means that X is false. Reversed / Opposite​ wording - lots of answers have
Ad Hominem​ - Dismissing a point of view because the the right ideas in the wrong order
source has a biased interest or has conflicting past Wrong Flaw​ - almost 50% of the answers in Flaw go
behavior. back to the top ten Famous Flaws, so we're routinely
Sampling​ - Extrapolating/generalizing too readily from seeing old friends like S
​ ampling​ and thinking, "This
a small sample, while failing to consider that the
wasn't one of t​ hose​."
sample might be biased, too small, or
Contradicted - it says the author "failed to consider"
unrepresentative.
Irrelevant Rebuttal -​ Rebutting someone's claim or
something she definitely considered.
argument by mischaracterizing it in some Straw Man
way or by bringing up something wholly irrelevant to
the original claim.
False Choice​ - Acting as though you have to choose
between two options, as though they're a binary /
exhaustive set, even though you never established
those are the only options.
Relative vs. Absolute​ - getting mixed up with
Percents vs..Amounts, or confusing more/less
language with yes/no language.
Inappropriate Appeal​ - your evidence is a plea for
sympathy, you cite an "authority" without establishing
credibility, or you favor one source's opinion over
another source's, without justifying your pick.
Almost always wrong answers:
Circular Reasoning -​ The premise of an argument
restates or assumes the conclusion.
Internal Contradiction​ - Something the author says
undermines or contradicts something else they say
Equivocation​ - Using the same "term" or concept to
mean two very different things.
 LSAT Lab

Weaken
Question Stem Keywords Correct Answer
The correct answer has more negative impact on the
most weakens, most undermines, casts doubt on,
argument than any other. Sometimes more than one
fails to consider, ignores the possibility that
answer choice weakens, and we need to ask:
"Which one has more impact?"

Examples The correct answer can feel a few different ways:

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the ● suggest an alternate interpretation for the
argument? evidence
● attack the connective tissue between evidence
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on and conclusion (un-LINK them)
Tom's reasoning? ● present a potential objection to the conclusion
● make the evidence seem less relevant or
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism because trustworthy
it fails to consider that
The correct answer should help you fill in this blank:
CONC IS WRONG because …. [answer choice]

Reading Goal or much more rarely

EVIDENCE IS FLAWED because …. [answer choice]
Find the Conclusion. Find the Support.

Think of an objection, by framing the argument

GIVEN this evidence,
HOW COULD WE argue against the conclusion?
Wrong Answers
Strengthens​ or drift in that direction
For ​Causal​ arguments, most correct answers suggest No Impact​ (Out of Scope / Irrelevant Distinction /
an ​alternate explanation ​for the Curious Fact in the Irrelevant Comparison)
evidence. Others will make the Author's Causal Story Too Weak​ (words like s​ ome, sometimes, can, may, not
less plausible​, often through a Cause / Effect all =
​ one data point)
mismatch (cause was present, but effect was absent /
cause was absent, but effect was still present)

For ​Comparison​ arguments, we will usually be asking

ourselves "What could be a ​meaningful difference
between these two things?"

If we hear a ​Term Shift​, we can look for an answer

making those two things seem like they're n ​ ot
connected.
 2

Stimulus Tendencies
Causal​ arguments -- a Curious Fact (a correlation, an
experiment, a survey, a statistic) followed by a
Conclusion that shows the Author's Causal
Interpretation of that fact.

Comparative​ arguments -- the author will often

assume "Because A and B are similar in this way, they'll
be similar in that way." Or "because this was true
before, it will be true again".

Predictions - ​What could be different in the future

that would keep this prediction from coming true?

Plan / Solution - ​How could this fail to achieve goal?

 LSAT Lab

Strengthen
Question Stem Keywords Correct Answer
most strengthens, most supports A correct answer on Strengthen, Weaken, or Paradox
the argument / reasoning / claim / hypothesis forces your brain to make a little connection on its
own. Use your common sense and outside knowledge;
if you're worried about whether you can assume that
Examples "antiques are more expensive than candy", ask yourself
if you polled 10 people on the street would at least 7 of
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the
them say "yes"? If so, that's a common sense idea.
argument?
There's no particular idea we need to have in the
The reasoning above is most supported by which of
answer. In each answer choice, you read a new fact.
the following?
Then, you have to take a beat and analyze whether
that has any impact on this case you're judging.
The conclusion above is most justified if which of the
following is assumed?
The reason a correct answer strengthens is something
we're explaining out loud in our brain. It's not written

Reading Goal on the page.

[ this answer choice ]
Find the Conclusion. Find the Support. makes the Conclusion more likely,
or the Evidence more compelling,
Ask yourself if you see any Logic Gaps or can think of because ... [ psst, Brain ... say something! ]
anything the author is Assuming. If we hear
something being assumed or sense a term shift or The correct answer has more positive impact on the
New Term in the conclusion, then we look for an argument than any other. Sometimes more than one
answer connecting those ideas. answer choice strengthens somewhat and we need to
ask, "Which one is stronger / has more impact?"
Consider how you would attack this argument if you
wanted to argue the Anti-Conclusion. A lot of correct The correct answer can function a few different ways:
answers will rule out potential objections, so you try to ● provide better connective tissue between the
think ahead of time (like a good lawyer would) what evidence and conclusion (LINK)
those objections would be. ● rule out a potential objection
● new info that makes the conclusion more likely
Think about what sort of evidence could make this to be true
argument more compelling. ● new info that makes the evidence more
compelling or trustworthy (samples,
experiments, correlations)
 2

Wrong Answers
do they W
​ eaken​ or feel like they're going ​Wrong
Direction​?

do they have N
​ o Impact​ (out of scope)?

are they ​Too Weak​?

(words like s​ ome, sometimes, can, may, not all =
​ one
data point)

Stimulus Tendencies
For ​Causal​ arguments, primarily expect to a​ dd
plausibility ​to the author's hypothesis (No Cause, No
Effect data points, More Cause/More Effect data points,
or something else that explains how the causal
connection would work or why it's a likely hypothesis),
but we also might see correct answers r​ uling out ​an
alternative explanation for the evidence.

For ​Comparison​ arguments, we want to be more

convinced that the two things being compared or
similar (if the author is assuming they're comparable)
or that the two things being compared are different (if
the author is assuming they're different).
 LSAT Lab

Paradox
Question Stem Keywords Correct Answer
explain, resolve, paradox, discrepancy, apparent It gives us some way to make sense of the surprising
conflict claim or unexpected difference.

The stronger the wording, the more impact an answer

Examples potentially has, so this is a question type where we
Prefer Stronger Language, and where we could
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain
consider Weak Language = Red Flag (sometimes, can,
the data from the study?
may, might, not all, not always).

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve

Whenever a question stem says, "Which of the
the apparent discrepancy?
following, if true, most ... ", (Paradox, Strengthen, and
Weaken), a few things apply:
- we expect brand new things we haven't heard
Reading Goal before
Understand the paradox. - we prefer stronger language over weaker language
These are not arguments, so do not look for a Premise - we will have to use a little bit of outside knowledge /
or Conclusion. common sense to connect what the answer is saying
to the impact it has on the stimulus
Find the Surprising Claim.
It's almost always the final idea, and it's almost always
prefaced by a pivot word like However / Yet /
Nevertheless. The question stem frequently identifies Wrong Answers
the thing you’re supposed to Explain.
Deepens Paradox​ - these i​ ncrease ​the surprise

What Background Fact(s) makes that a surprise?

Explains Background -​ these tell us more about why
Ask yourself, "Why would we have expected
the background fact is true, but they don't help us
something different from this last, surprising claim?"
understand why the surprising claim is true

Frame the tension.

No Distinction​ - this is special trap answer that we see
GIVEN t​ he background claim(s),
on Paradox; since we are almost always looking for
HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN t​ he surprising claim?
some meaningful difference between two things / two
groups / two timeframes / two situations, if an answer
provides something that would be true for both
things, for both situations, then it's probably useless.

Too Weak - i​ t's possible for an answer to lose out to

the correct answer because it's worded much more
weakly, or requires us to add more suppositions of our
own to make it work.
 2

Stimulus Tendencies
The paradox usually hinges around Causality and
Comparisons.

We are usually needing to figure out the C

​ ausal
Difference-Maker​ between two things, two groups,
two situations, two timeframes.

- Given this sameness, how are they different?

- Given this difference, how are they the same?
- Given this positive, how is this seen as a negative?
- Given this negative, how is this seen as a positive?
- Given this plan, how come its objective wasn't
achieved?
- Given X's alibi, how can we explain why Y happened?

Some ​Explain q ​ uestions feel a little different. They

don't necessarily pit two things in tension with each
other. They just present something and ask us to
Explain it. But these are 15% or less of Paradox
questions.

On E​ xplain ​question stems, you'll always see a specific

reference to what we're trying to explain. If it says,
"Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain
Sarah's reaction to the gift", then we already know that
everything else is background, and our job is simply to
pick an answer that makes sense of Sarah's reaction.

On R​ esolve ​question stems, they're more likely to just

use a generic term like "paradox, apparent conflict,
discrepancy", so then it's more on us to figure out
where the tension is (although half of the tension will
always be the final claim).

On R
​ esolve-EXCEPT​, don’t be surprised if 3 of the
functional answers (which we’re eliminating) help
explain the paradox in one way, but the final functional
answer, which you’re eliminating, is solving the
paradox in a very different way.
 LSAT Lab

Evaluate
So the Objections offered in the correct answer usually
deal with A
​ lternate Explanations​, the plausibility of
Question Stem Keywords the Author’s Explanation, or O
​ verlooked ​aspects of a
Evaluate, evaluating, assessing, determining, Comparison / Prediction / Recommendation.
most useful to determine, most helpful to establish

Correct Answer
Examples A correct answer on Evaluate asks a relevant question.
The answer to which of the following questions would How do we know if it’s relevant? We know because if
be most helpful in evaluating the argument? we answered the question one way, we would
Strengthen the argument. If we answered it the
Which one of the following would be most useful to opposite way, we would Weaken the argument.
know in order to evaluate the strength of the
argument? Personally, I only really listen for that second type of
situation. I’m thinking, “Which of these questions
could I answer in a way that would most Weaken the

Reading Goal argument?”

Find the Conclusion. Find the Support.

Wrong Answers
Ask yourself if you see any Logic Gaps or can think of
No Impact - t​ hey pose a question that we could
anything the author is Assuming. If we hear
answer any way we’d like and it wouldn’t affect the
something being assumed or sense a term shift or
argument.
New Term in the conclusion, then we look for an
answer connecting those ideas.
Too Specific / Strong​ - they’re requesting an exact
figure or measurement or posing an extreme question
More likely, though, we will need to consider possible
that wouldn’t Weaken if the answer were ‘no’.
objections. How could you accept the Evidence, but
still fight the Conclusion (or argue for the
Anti-Conclusion)?

Stimulus Tendencies
These questions are very rare. There have only been
about 30 of them total, in all 90 tests, so we see one of
them every 3 tests or so. However, they have been
occurring more frequently in tests in the 70s and 80s.

Evaluate is basically the same as Strengthen / Weaken,

so the arguments we see are almost all Causal
Explanations, Predictions, or Recommendations.
 LSAT Lab

Must Be True
Question Stem Keywords Correct Answer
statements, information, passage, must be true, It is provable based on only the provided information.
properly inferred, follows logically
It does n
​ ot n
​ eed to use all the facts; in fact, it's a very
common template that the inference involves
Examples combining the first and last claims (while the middle
If the statements are true, which one of the following claim acts as filler). It's very rare for the correct answer
must be true? to be derived from only one idea, so you should
normally feel like in order to support the correct
Which of the following can be inferred by the answer, you need to combine 2 or more facts.
information in the passage?

We would gravitate more towards answers with

easy-to-prove language like "some, could, can, may,
Reading Goal might, sometimes, not always, not all, need not".
As we read facts, we're looking for two or more ideas However, on Must Be True it is very common for the
that we could synthesize. Look for clues about where correct answer to have strong, black-and-white
that synthesis might come, by keeping your eyes language. Since almost all the inferences come from
peeled for C
​ onditional​, C
​ ausal​, or ​Quantified​ ideas.
Conditional or Mathematical thinking, they have the
certainty that justifies strong language.
If you see C
​ onditional​ language, look for a fact that
triggers that rule (or, more likely, that triggers the
contrapositive). If you have more than one Conditional,
see if they chain together. Wrong Answers
Too Strong​ - words like a​ ll, none, only, unless​, as well
If you see a ​Pivot​ holding two mathematical ideas in as medium-strong words like t​ ypically, usually, most,
tension, think about how to mathematically reconcile generally, tends to, primarily o ​ ften are stronger than
those two ideas. what the information has told us.
Out of Scope​ - answers that bring up things for which
If you see Q​ uantifier w
​ ords like "Some / Most / All", ask we were provided no information are almost always
yourself if you can make any Trait Overlap inference. wrong
Reversed / Opposite logic​ - if there is any conditional
If you see C
​ ausal ​words, ask yourself if you can chain logic involved, there will usually be at least one trap
together causal ideas or state a causal relationship answer that represents the conditional logic in
between two things that is implied but not already backwards or opposite fashion.
directly stated. Unknown Comparisons​ - a lot of correct answers take
an absolute adjective like "successful" and try to make
a comparative claim like "more successful" out of it.
Contradicted​ - some answers actually go ​against
what we read.
 2

Most A's are B .​ ...... S​ ome B's are A

Stimulus Tendencies Most A's are C .​ ...... ​All A’s are C
Infer: Some B are C​ .​ ..... ​Some B's than C's
These are ​FACTS​, not ARGUMENTS.
Most A's are B .​ ..... .​All A’s are B
The stimulus usually features some blend of
All B's are C .​ ...... M
​ ost A’s are C
Conditional​ or ​Quantified​ ideas..
Infer: Most A’s are C​ .​ .... ​Some B's than C's

CONDITIONAL ​INFERENCES
All A's are B .​ ..... ​All A’s are B
We often have to chain together multiple conditionals.
All B's are C .​ ...... A
​ ll A’s are C
Infer: All A’s are C​ .​ .... ​Some B's than C's
They might tell us “All A’s are B. Anyone who isn’t a C
can’t be a B. Being C ensures that you’re D.”
Most A's are B .​ ...... A
​ ll A’s are B
Most B's are C .​ ...... M​ ost B’s are C
In conditional form, that’s
Infer: nothin’ nothin’
A → B, B → C, and C → D, which we chain together to get
​A → B → C → D
OVERLAP IS A MAJORITY / MINORITY
The most likely correct answer would be
Most A’s are B. Most B’s are not A.
A → D​ or the contrapositive ~​ D → ~A​.
Infer​: There are more B’s than A’s

But any subset of that chain can be properly inferred,

PERCENTAGE VS. TOTAL
such as ​A → C​ or B
​ → D​.
If my rent is higher now than five years ago, but my
rent represents that same proportion of my salary as it
CONTRAPOSITIVE I​ NFERENCES
did five years ago, t​ hen​ my salary now is higher than
The other common setup is that we have a conditional
five years ago.
such as ​A → B​ and then we get a fact that triggers the
contrapositive: X is not B.
If the tax rate on new cars has gone up, but people are
We’re then supposed to infer the contrapositive
paying the same average amount of tax on a new car,
outcome: X is not A.
then​ the price of new cars has gone down.

RULING OUT OPTIONS ​INFERENCES

A bigger percent of a bigger total is a bigger number..
We may have 2 or 3 possible options identified, but
through the course of ruling out all but 1 option, we
CHAINED INEQUALITIES
are forced to infer that final option.
If x > y, and y > z, t​ hen​ x > z.
“Anyone at this party is either a lawyer, a female, a
butler, or some combo of the three. Patrick, a male, is
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
not a lawyer but he is lovin’ being at this party!”
If the avg score for Group A was 160, and the avg score
​Infer: Patrick is a butler​.
for the non-teachers in the group was 152, t​ hen​ the
avg score for the teachers in the group had to be
MATHEMATICAL I​ NFERENCES
higher than 160.
If we see words like "Some, Most, All, Few", then the
correct answer might be testing a Trait Overlap
inference.

One variety of Trait Overlap involves m

​ ost + most​.
All the other ones require at least one a
​ ll/no​.
 LSAT Lab

Most Supported between two things that is implied but not already
directly stated.
Question Stem Keywords
If you see a P
​ ivot​, think about what it would sound like
statements, information, passage, most support which
to safely combine what comes after the pivot with
answer, which answer is most supported, most
what came before. (RECONCILE THE PIVOT)
illustrates which proposition/generalization
If you see S
​ imilarly / Just As​ language, try to carry
over a similarity from one thing to another
Examples (COMPLETE THE ANALOGY).
If the statements are true, they most strongly support
which of the following? If it's Logical Completion (fill in the blank), think about
a safely worded conclusion that would pull together
The information given most supports which one of the the thoughts already mentioned.
following?
If it’s Apply the Principle, diagram the principle and
Which of the following most logically completes the contrapose if needed so that the judgy term is on the
argument? (LOGICAL COMPLETION - fill in the blank) right​ of the arrow. Remind yourself that you can only
conclude the ideas on the right side of the arrows. You
Which of the following propositions is best illustrated can’t conclude their opposites.
by the passage? (PROPOSITION/GENERALIZATION)
Correct Answer
Which of the following situations most conforms to
the principle stated above? (APPLY THE PRINCIPLE) The most provable claim there is always the correct
answer. Sometimes it'll feel 99% must be true. Other
times it will feel more speculative, but it's always the
Reading Goal most supported. It does n
​ ot ​need to use all the facts; in
fact, it's a very common template that the inference
As we read facts, we're looking for two or more ideas
involves combining the first and last claims (while the
that we could synthesize.
middle claim acts as filler).
Look for clues about where that synthesis might come,
by keeping your eyes peeled for C​ onditional​, ​Causal​, Correct answers will often have easy-to-prove
Pivot​, or ​Comparative​ language. language like "some, could, can, may, might,
sometimes, not always, not all, need not".
In particular, look out for ​overlapping i​ deas. An idea
that shows up more than once is often the conduit to It's very rare for the correct answer to be derived from
chaining something together, triggering a rule, or
only one idea, so you should normally feel like in order
otherwise making an inference.
to support the correct answer, you need to combine 2
or more facts.
If you see C
​ ausal ​words, ask yourself if you can chain
together causal ideas or state a causal relationship
 2

Most commonly, there is a C ​ ausal Difference-Maker

Wrong Answers identified or suggested. Explicit causal language looks
like b
​ ecause of this / due to this / this allows / this
Too Strong​ - words like a​ ll, none, only, unless​, as well
makes possible / this leads to​.
as medium-strong words like ​typically, usually, most,
generally, tends to, primarily o ​ ften are stronger than
Implicit causality is more like "These two things /
what the information has told us.
groups / situations / timelines have distinction X. And
Out of Scope​ - answers that bring up things for which
we know or observed that they were different when it
we were provided no information are almost always
comes to Y.” This sets up an inference that “X has some
wrong
influence on Y”.
Reversed / Opposite logic​ - if there is any conditional
logic involved, there will usually be at least one trap
Comparison / Contrast i​ nferences
answer that represents the conditional logic in
Most L​ ogical Completion ​questions (fill in the blank)
backwards or opposite fashion.
have a c​ omplete the analogy​ feel. They tell us that
Unknown Comparisons​ - a lot of correct answers take
"Thing A is like Thing B. And since X would be true of
an absolute adjective like "successful" and try to make
Thing A, _____ ", setting us up for an answer that
a comparative claim like "more successful" out of it.
reinforces "X would be true of Thing B".
Contradicted​ - some answers actually go ​against
what we read.
A lot of comparison/contrast ideas are setups for
correct answers that reinforce t​ he Causal
Difference-Maker​.
Stimulus Tendencies
These are almost always FACTS, not ARGUMENTS. When the last idea is introduced with a b ​ ut / yet /
(when they are an argument, the tested inference is however p ​ ivot, the correct answer usually ​Reconciles
usually very similar to a necessary assumption). the Pivot​, safely combining the last idea with what
came before the pivot..
The stimulus frequently features some blend of
Conditional, Causal, Comparison/Contrast, or
Quantified language (not all at once).

Conditional​ inferences
We might have to chain together multiple
conditionals, but more likely would be that we have
some fact that triggers a conditional rule (usually by
contrapositive) and lets us infer the outcome of the
rule.

Causal​ inferences
There are some chains of causality that let us infer that
First thing causes Last thing (f.e. “A causes B, which
leads to C.” i​ nfer: A leads to C​).

There are also some examples of ​Solve the Causal

Mystery​, in which the most supportable answer is a
speculative guess about what could account for the
facts.
 LSAT Lab

Must Be False
Correct Answer
Question Stem Keywords It is CONTRADICTED by the information in the passage
(or in L
​ east Compatible / Most Justifiably Rejected​, it is
must be false, could be true EXCEPT, violates principle,
badly undermined by something in the passage).
most justifiably rejected, LEAST compatible

If it's contradicting a conditional rule, it will establish

Examples that the t​ rigger​ of the rule i​ s happening​, but the

outcome​ is ​not happening​.
If the statements are true, which one of the following
must be false?
If it's contradicting an inference we made, it'll just
sound like a negation of that inference or an
Based on the statements, each of the following could
be true EXCEPT: impossibility, given the truth of that inference.

Which of the following is LEAST COMPATIBLE with the The correct answer is often strongly worded, because
information in the passage? contradicting a strong statement requires something
very weak. (if you say "all ice cream is delicious", I can
Which of the following situations would violate the contradict you with just one batch of Cousin Larry's
principle stated?
Meatballs & Marshmallows ice cream).

The passage provides the strongest reason for

rejecting which of the following?
Wrong Answers
Weak Language​ - it's hard to contradict a weak claim,
Reading Goal because you'd have to prove something really strong.
If someone said "Some cops abuse their power", it
Read this as though you're trying to make a v​ alid
would be hard to contradict them, since "some" is so
inference, because they will often contradict a valid
weak and so contradicting it would require arguing
inference that can be made.
that "no cops ever have abused their power".

Pay particular attention to whether there is any

Out of Scope​ - answers that bring up things for which
Conditional​ language. Can conditionals be chained
we were provided no information are almost always
together or can a rule be applied to a fact to derive a
wrong. We can't contradict an idea, if we never
2nd fact?
covered that idea.

If there's not any conditional logic, then there's likely a

Reversed / Opposite logic​ - there are illegal
mathematical inference that can be made or a causal
inferences, but that's not the same thing as a
difference-maker situation discussed.
contradiction. Students frequently confuse Must Be
False with "this can't be inferred". Don't conflate Must
Be False with Unsupported. We're saying there IS
support, for the OPPOSITE of this answer.
 2

If my rent is higher now than five years ago, but my

rent represents that same proportion of my salary as it

Stimulus Tendencies did five years ago, t​ hen​ my salary now is higher than
five years ago.
These are FACTS, not ARGUMENTS.
CAUSAL DIFFERENCE-MAKER
Must Be False​ question stems will usually have fact When Inference passages give us c ​ ausal language​, it
sets that include Conditional or Mathematical ideas. factually establishes a causal influence. Look out for
claims that get connected with language like
Most Justifiably Rejected / Least Compatible because of this
question stems will usually have fact sets that feature due to this
a Similarity, Distinction, or Causal Difference-Maker. this allows
this makes possible
CONDITIONAL by doing this
If we have m​ ore than one​ conditional, ​chain them this leads to
together. If we get a conditional and some fact about resulting in
X applies to the trigger or to the contrapositive's contributes to".
trigger, then i​ nfer the outcome​ about X.
example:​: Patrick started chewing gum during his
The correct answer will either contradict a conditional timed sections. B​ y doing this,​ his score improved​.
or conditional chain, by providing a case in which the
trigger is true but the outcome isn't​, or it will Since that pair of ideas establishes a causal
contradict an inference we derived from applying a relationship between chewing gum and doing better
conditional rule to fact X. on the test, it would be Must Be False -ish to say stuff
like, "New routines never lead to improvement" or "The
MATHEMATICAL activities of your jaw are wholly independent of your
Correct answers on Must Be False will often contradict performance on a test."
a mathematical inference we can make. Here are
some examples of inferences we c​ an ​make; the
correct answer would sound like a contradiction of
each inference.

If we see words like "Some, Most, All, Few", then the

correct answer might be testing that two qualities
overlap at least once, or that one group must be
bigger than another.
Most A's are B ​........ ​Most A's are B
Most A's are C .​ ....... ​Most B's are ~A
Infer: Some B are C​ ​......... ​More B's than A's

There are other mathematical ideas tested, relating to

% change, averages, and inequalities.
If x > y, and y > z,​..​then​ x > z.

If the avg score for Group A was 160, and the avg score
for the non-teachers in the group was 152, t​ hen​ the
avg score for the teachers in the group had to be
higher than 160.
 LSAT Lab

Agree / Disagree
Question Stem Keywords Correct Answer
disagree, agree, point at issue On a Disagree or Point at Issue task, the correct
answer is a claim for which we can infer that one of
the people would agree and the other person would
Examples disagree (they would agree to its logical contradiction).
The dialogue above most supports that Pam and
Dawn disagree about which of the following? On an Agree question, the correct answer is a claim for
which we can infer that each person would agree.
Based on their statements, Jerome and AJ are
committed to agreeing to which of the following? Frequently, the correct answer uses the phrasing of
one person, to express the opinion of the other person.
Which of the following is the point at issue between
Martinez and Howie? For example, if the first person said "Rigatoni is the
most traditional form of pasta" and the second person
disagreed by saying "Hogwash. Spaghetti predates

Reading Goal rigatoni by two centuries", then the answer would

either ...
● Read each person's statements​ (don't worry use person 1's language to express person 2's opinion:
about finding their "conclusion" or "support") Rigatoni is not the most traditional form of pasta
or
● After you've read each person's paragraph, go use person 2's language to express person 1's opinion:
back and ​revisit each claim the 1st person Spaghetti does not predate rigatoni by two centuries
made​.

● For each claim, ask yourself if the ​2nd person Wrong Answers
agreed / disagreed / we don't know​.
Both Agree​ - on disagree questions, there are often
● If there aren't any explicit claims that the 2nd answers that both people agreed to or would
person is agreeing / disagreeing with, then ask presumably agree to
yourself whether the 1st person is assuming Both Disagree​ - on agree questions, there is often one
anything the 2nd person would agree/disagree answer that shows where the two people disagreed
with. Out of Scope​ - the most common trap answer brings
up a topic that one (or both) of the people never
We want to aspire to dial our pre-phrase pretty addressed.
specifically. Since we are usually locating one and only Too Strong​ - this can be tricky to see because the Too
one claim or assumption in Person 1's statements that Strong version of a lot of trap answers is the
Person 2 (dis)agrees with, we can be very proactive contradiction. Remember, for a correct answer, we can
about looking for answer choices that sound like that infer that one person would agree, and we can infer
claim, and distancing ourselves from anything that that the other person would agree to the logical
doesn’t sound like that claim / assumption. contradiction (the negation).
 2

So if we see an answer like

(A) Some attempts by the government to intervene
are more problematic than the problem they
attempted to solve.

It's easy to believe that one person would agree to that

weakly worded claim. But would the other person
disagree?

i.e. would either person agree that "Attempts by the

government to intervene ​never m ​ ake the situation
more problematic than before"? Probably not.

Stimulus Tendencies
The first person's statements more often resemble an
argument, while the second person's often don't have
any explicit conclusion.

Ultimately, though, we don't care which claim is a

background vs. premise vs. conclusion. We're just
hunting for the claims that clash / match.

Most of the time, the claim they agree/disagree with is

explicit. Only on harder ones will we have to ask
ourselves about whether their point of (dis)agreement
is an assumption.
 LSAT Lab

Main Conclusion Sometimes, our best clue about where the conclusion
is will be an O
​ pinion Indicator ​like "probably,
Question Stem Keywords apparently, evidently".

main conclusion, main point

Beware that there may be I​ ntermediate Conclusions.
They will pass the Support test, because they will have
their own premise. But they are there to support the
Examples Main Conclusion.
Which of the following best expresses the main
conclusion of the argument? Beware that there may be C ​ ausal-Indicator ​words
that look like Conclusion-Indicator words. You can use
Which of the following is Eddie's main point? "thus, therefore, hence, so"

Reading Goal Correct Answer

Find the conclusion. The correct answer just reproduces the meaning of
the Conclusion. Sometimes it's a verbatim
Make sure that it sounds like regurgitation. More commonly, they use synonyms or
Author's Opinion​ (not an established fact) inverted syntax to present an equivalent meaning that
Supported​ by at least one explicit claim. still looks a little different.

That's it! Isn't life generous sometimes? Oooh, there's f.e. orig conc: "not all tornadoes should be avoided."
one catch ... answer: "some tornadoes should not be avoided."

LSAC is seeking to make it harder than usual to find The 2-part Conclusion Check:
the Conclusion. So it's very rare to see the Conclusion - is this an Opinion our author stated?
be the final claim, prefaced by anything obvious like - was this answer S​ upported​ by at least one claim?
Therefore / Thus / So, though sometimes it will be that.

Rather than making the conclusion the last claim, in Wrong Answers
more than 90% of Main Conclusion questions, t​ he
- Premise
conclusion appears, then evidence comes after​.
- Last Claim (​ people default to guessing last claim)
- I​ ntermediate C​ onclusion
The two most common places to find the conclusion:
- What Next​ (these present a claim that was never
​- First sentence
said, but they don't like the n
​ ext t​ hing the author
- After a P​ ivot​ word (like ​But / Yet / However​)
would probably say)
-N ​ ecessary Assumption ​(these feel tempting
Other times, the Conclusion will be indirectly revealed
because we can tell that they are a correct inference
by ​Support language​ like "for, after all, to see this".
about the author's thinking, but the Conclusion is an
They usually wouldn't use an obvious Premise
explicit claim, whereas these assumptions are implicit;
indicator like "since" or "because".
they were never said)
 2

Prephrase Goal
This is the most lovable question type ever. We just
have to find the conclusion and reiterate to ourselves,
"Okay, don't overcomplicate this --- just go find that
claim we identified as the conclusion".

Many conclusions will be some form of rebuttals or

other claim that uses referential language (pronouns,
like "this, that, they, such")

If so, we want to take the time to replace the pronoun

with its reference language.

f.e.
Some people propose laws that would require
mandatory background checks before owning a gun.
However, such laws won't affect the homicide rate.
Almost all homicides are committed by people who
would pass the background check proposed in this
law.

If we correctly identified the 2nd sentence as the

conclusion, our job is to remind ourselves what "​such
laws" refers to, and use that language in its place when
we're saying the conclusion back to ourselves.

"Okay, the conclusion is that [​laws requiring

mandatory background checks] won't affect the
homicide rate​."
 LSAT Lab

Role
keywords correct answer
claim​ plays what ​role​, statement ​figures​ in which way The correct answer doesn't say anything descriptively
wrong. The other four do. (maybe once in a blue moon,

examples you'd have two "true" answers, where you'd have to

ask which one's better).
The claim that salad dressing is not legally allowed to
be marketed as shampoo plays what role in the The most common correct answer is Premise or some
argument? other way of describing Supporting Idea.

The statement that croutons are the Devil's Easier Role questions will stick to classic language like
handmaiden figures in the argument in which of the Premise and Conclusion, whereas harder Role
following ways? questions will often switch to less familiar abstract
language or synonyms.

reading goal Main Conclusion​ - the claim the author seeks to

Find the conclusion. establish, a generalization supported by evidence, the
only conclusion,
Make sure that it sounds like Author's Opinion (facts ≠ Premise​ - support, partial support (just means there's
conclusions), is Supported by at least one explicit more than one premise), evidence, illustration of,
claim, and isn't an Intermediate Conclusion. example of, unsupported premise
Intermediate Conclusion​ - subsidiary conclusion,
Find the supporting idea(s). supported premise, a conclusion but not the main
conclusion, a statement for which some support is
Now take a look at the question stem and see if it was provided but is used to support the main conclusion
asking about the conclusion or one of the supporting Opposing Position​ - the view the argument is
ideas. If so, head over to the answers. designed to discredit, the claim the author attempts
to show is false
If not, think about whether this claim was something
Neutral to the conclusion (like Background info) or
something Opposing to the author's argument (an
incorrect answers
opponent's conclusion, an opponent's premise, or a Wrong Ingredien​t - these describe something in the
concession to the opponent the author makes) paragraph, but not the claim we were asked about
Didn't Happen​ - these reference something that never
happened in the paragraph

pre-phrase goal Wrong Conclusion​ - lots of wrong answers correctly

call the claim a Premise but then say it's supporting
Don't overcomplicate it. Go with one of these: some idea that doesn't match the argument's
● Main Conclusion Conclusion
● Supports Too Strong​ - (rare) some answers say that an idea
● Opposes being r​ equired o
​ r ​sufficient​ for the conclusion, or they
● Neutral inflate disagreement into r​ efutes​.
 2

stimulus tendencies
LSAC is seeking to make it harder than usual to find
the Conclusion, so the Conclusion is only the final
claim about 10% of the time. 90% of the time the final
claim (or the final 2 or 3 claims) is support.

It's very common on Role questions to have

rebuttal-style arguments in which the author is
arguing against something.

We also want to be on high alert for Intermediate

(Subsidiary) Conclusions. This is the question on LSAT
where we are most likely to need to worry about an
Intermediate Conclusion. They will pass the Support
test, because they will have their own premise. But
they are there to support the Main Conclusion.

Other times, the Conclusion will be indirectly revealed

by Support language (F.A.B.S.) like "for, after all,
because, since".

Sometimes, our best clue about where the conclusion

is will be an Opinion Indicator like "probably,
apparently, evidently".
 LSAT Lab

Method
Question Stem Keywords Correct Answer
proceeds by, responds by, argumentative technique, The correct answer doesn't say anything descriptively
method of reasoning wrong. The other four do.

Much of what we have to do when analyzing these

Examples answer choices is match up one abstract phrase with
the evidence and another with the conclusion.
The diplomat's argument proceeds by …
Pay attention to wording indicating which part of an
Charlie responds to Sarah in which of the following
answer deals with Conclusion, which deals with
ways?
Evidence, and which deals with an Opposing position.
● concludes C ​ ​ on the basis of E​
Which of the following is a technique of reasoning
● infers, from the claim that E ​ ​, that C
​
used in the argument?
● attempts to C ​ ​ by ​E
● demonstrates C ​ ​ by E
​
● claiming C ​ ​ because of E ​
Reading Goal ● basing a conclusion on the claim that E ​
Find the conclusion. ● refuting O ​ o ​ n the grounds that E ​
Find the supporting idea(s).
Characterize the type of evidence used or the type of Answer choices describing a 2nd person's response
path the argument takes to get from evidence to often toggle between whether or not the 2nd person
conclusion. agreed/disagreed with the 1st person’s evidence, or
conclusion, or an assumption.

Pre-phrase goal
Incorrect Answer
If you’ve become familiar with some of the common
types of answers, then you might choose from this list, There aren't really patterns or types of correct answers,
but feel free to invent your own. Just think about how because they're all wrong for being descriptively
you would describe the type of evidence or the inaccurate about something. The one frequently
journey the author took in a general way. recurring wrong answer on Describe the Response
● Analogy type tasks, though, is that the 2nd person responded
● Rules Out Competing Options by "​denying the validity of the evidence​". We know
● Implications of Logic that's not LSAT's style. The 2nd person never does that.
● Make a Distinction
● Alternate Explanation for a phenomenon
● (Counter)example to a General Principle
● Point Out Dubious Assumption
● Raise an Overlooked Consideration
 2

Alternate Explanation for a phenomenon -​ The rise in

music recordings that use sampled drums, rather than
Stimulus Tendencies live drums, has been attributed to the ascendancy of
hip-hop as one of the most popular styles of music.
There's a pretty consistent list of argument moves that
However, it is also possible that more music makers
they test us on:
are turning to sampled drums because sound-editing
● Analogy
programs like GarageBand, which makes adding
● Rules Out Competing Options
sampled drums to a recording very easy, have become
● Implications of Logic
standard software in many computers.
● Make a Distinction
● Alternate Explanation for a phenomenon
(Counter)example to a General Principle -​ It's often
● (Counter)example to a General Principle
said that you never get a second chance to make a
● Point Out Dubious Assumption
first impression. The first night Sheila met her eventual
● Raise an Overlooked Consideration
husband, she said a lot of embarrassing things.
However, he was so blackout drunk at the time that
You don't have to memorize this list, but if you
when he saw her at a mutual friend's party a month
become more familiar with it, you may find it easier to
later, he didn't realize he had ever met her before.
anticipate possible answer wording. Here's a quick
example of each of these:
Point Out Dubious Assumption -​
MARK: When I visited my niece a year ago, she was
Analogy ​- Parents want to force their children to
really into those T​ wilight b​ ooks, so for Christmas I'm
practice the piano. But j​ ust as y
​ ou can't force the
getting her a T ​ wilight c
​ alendar.
blossom of a rose before it's ready, we should give
LEROY: Children's entertainment obsessions change
children the time they need to come to the piano on
on an almost-quarterly basis. Are you sure she's still
their own terms.
into T
​ wilight​?

Rules Out Competing Options ​- Eliza wants her child

Raise an Overlooked Consideration -​
Herbert to learn an instrument. Herbert is only
ABDUL: Sharon ended up getting a 152 on her LSAT,
interested in drums, piano, and flute. Since drums and
which is only a 50th percentile score, so I guess that
piano are too big to fit inside Eliza's apartment, she
tutor she hired was a waste of money.
should buy Herbert a flute.
SARAFINA: She had been stuck at 140 for months until
she started working with the tutor, and now she has a
Implications of Logic ​- Some claim that we should
score that could get her into law school.
always be honest with people. But if this were true,
then when my daughter plays me the new song she
just "wrote" on piano and asks me if I like it, I would be
needlessly discouraging her if I honestly told her that I
thought it was hot garbage.

Make a Distinction​ - Many parents who live in

apartment buildings are worried about their children
practicing a musical instrument at home and
annoying the nearby tenants. However, it is primarily
low frequency sounds that penetrate walls, due to
their longer waveforms. Thus, a flute, which is primarily
a high-frequency instrument, is fine to practice in an
apartment building, as its sound is unlikely to disturb
neighbors.
 LSAT Lab

Parallel
keywords pre-phrase goal
most similar, parallels, pattern of reasoning, structure Rehearse your principle or abstract recipe, and also ask
of reasoning yourself "Which ingredient would be the easiest to
find/confirm?" or "Which ingredient is my best initial

examples reference point, for the rest of the relationships in this

argument?".
The pattern of reasoning in the argument is most
similar to which of the following? You’re trying to pinpoint which aspect of the
argument could be quickly scanned for, to get a quick
The pattern of reasoning in which of the following elimination if there’s a mismatch. And you’re looking
arguments most closely parallels that in the to find any conditional or quantified claims asap,
argument? because once you see which ideas are in which slots of
those claim, it dictates how those ideas should be

reading goal assigned to the remaining claims in the argument.

Find the argument's pieces (Conc and Evid) and judge

its logical soundness.
correct answer
The correct answer will be more similar to the original
Decide whether you're going to represent this with argument than will any of the other answer choices.
claim-by-claim algebra (if it's one of those 70-75% that
uses conditional or quantified language), or whether It will almost always have the same number of
you're going to boil the reasoning down to a slogan / premises as the original argument. The conclusion will
principle (the remaining 25-30%). be the same type of claim and strength of claim.

Consider articulating for yourself the number of However, it is very common for the chronological order
premises, the strength of each claim, the type of each of claims to have been shuffled around. It doesn't
claim, and the recipe of combining the ingredients. matter in which order we get the Conclusion or each
Premise, as long as we get them.
This is the vocabulary we would typically use for type
of claim: If we're ever not finding a
​ ny ​answers that match, we
● conditional​ (keep track of ​and's ​and ​or's​) may be looking for something too picky and need to
● either/or soften our must-have list. If we find two answers that
● normative​ (should, ought, good, bad) seem to match, then we need to get even pickier and
● quantified​ (some, most, all, not all, few) look for some subtle difference between the two and
● comparative​ (more, taller, smarter, weaker) compare it back to the original.
● causal​ relationship
● statement of ​fact

This is the vocabulary we would typically use for type

of claim:
certain​ (all, must, only, can’t, etc.)
probable​ (probably, usually, most, likely, etc.)
possible​ (some, can, may, not all, might)
 2

incorrect answers Examples of conditional / quantified arguments.

- Topic Trap​ - often one trap answer seems
suspiciously similar to the original in terms of its topic All A's are B. If X, then Y or Z.
(the correct answer has a similar logical structure but All B's are C. X happened.
almost invariably is discussing a completely different X is a A. Y didn't happen.
topic) Thus, X is a C. ​ T
​ hus, Z happened.

- Bad Premise Match​ - there might be an ingredient X is A or B.

entirely missing (a lot of wrong answers don't have the A doesn't seem possible.
same number of premises as the original), or T
​ hus, X is probably B.
otherwise it will not quite match up in terms of type of
claim or strength of claim. Most A's are B. If X, then Y.
Most A's are C. But Y isn't true / isn't good.
- Bad Conclusion Match​ - it might be the wrong type Thus, Some B are C. So, not X / shouldn't do X.
of claim, the wrong strength of claim, or it might be
referring to the wrong thing when it comes to
matching the flow of the original. Here are some principles / patterns they've tested:

- Validity Mismatch​ - most of the original arguments ● You shouldn't do X, because whether you fail or
are valid or at least very reasonable. If we then read an succeed something bad happens.
answer that is clearly flawed, that's enough reason to
reject it. ● If it's been true in the past, it'll probably be true
again.

● It's pointless to do X, because it's not worth the

stimulus tendencies effort / doomed to fail / make the problem

worse
These will (refreshingly) be v ​ alid, ​or at least highly
reasonable arguments. We don't need to worry ● The principle/claim that X is wrong, because
whether they're valid, although recognizing that an here's a counterexample.
original argument ​is v​ alid can make it that much
easier to get rid of any answer choice whose argument ● X must qualify as Z, because Y qualifies, and X is
is flawed. a safer bet than Y.

Since LSAT is testing patterns of structure, the

arguments need a lot of Conditional or Quantified
signposts, so that we can successfully represent them
abstractly.

About 70-75% of these arguments will contain

Conditional Logic or some other form of
black-and-white claim. The other 25-30% of them can
be abstractly captured by some principle like, “if it ain’t
broke, don’t fix it", or by some familiar LSAT reasoning
pattern like "Just because two things are correlated,
doesn't mean that one causes another, because they
could both be symptoms of a third factor".
 LSAT Lab

Parallel Flaw
keywords
most similar, parallels, flawed pattern of reasoning, because once you see which ideas are in which slots of
erroneous reasoning, questionable reasoning those claim, it dictates how those ideas should be
assigned to the remaining claims in the argument.

examples
The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument is
correct answer
most similar to which of the following? Above all, the correct answer has to replicate the same
flaw, or be vulnerable to the same objection. It will
The questionable pattern of reasoning in which of the usually mimic all the same structural pieces, but there
following arguments most closely parallels that in the are exceptions to that. The other thing essential is the
argument? flaw.

reading goal If we're ever not finding a

​ ny ​answers that match, we
may be looking for something too picky and need to
● Read the argument and try to find some Flaw soften our must-have list. If we find two answers that
● Was there any conditional logic? If so, look for seem to match, then we need to get even pickier and
illegal reversals or negations. Consider look for some subtle difference between the two and
diagramming the parts. compare it back to the original.
● Were there any quantifier words like Some,
Most, All? Consider diagramming the recipe?
● If there weren't conditional or quantified
incorrect answers
language, could this be committing a Topic Trap​ - often one trap answer seems suspiciously
Sampling, Circular, Ad Hominem, Part vs. similar to the original in terms of its topic (the correct
Whole, or Unproven vs. Proven False flaw? answer has a similar logical structure but almost
● If nothing has applied so far, how could we invariably is discussing a completely different topic)
ACCEPT the evidence but FIGHT the Bad Premise Match​ - there might be an ingredient
conclusion? What objection would we make? entirely missing (a lot of wrong answers don't have the
same number of premises as the original), or
otherwise it will not quite match up in terms of type of

pre-phrase goal claim or strength of claim.

Bad Conclusion Match​ - it might be the wrong type of
If we identified a famous flaw, we'll just be going to the claim, the wrong strength of claim, or it might be
answers thinking, f.e., "I need a Sampling flaw, where referring to the wrong thing when it comes to
the sample size is too small". matching the flow of the original.
Validity Mismatch​ - if we read an answer that is valid
If we identified a conditional or quantified flaw, then logic, then that's enough reason to reject it.
we will probably have a 3 or 4 ingredient recipe of
claims (usually 2 premises and 1 conclusion).

For all other cases, we need to think of our objection to

the original argument in abstract terms. Subtract the
topic and think about the form of the objection.
 2

stimulus tendencies
These will tend to either be Conditional / Quantified
flaws, or Famous Flaws. There are 5 or 6 famous flaws
that show up a lot on these:
● Necessary vs. Sufficient
(reading a conditional backwards or flipped)
● Part vs. Whole
● Failure to Consider Alternative Explanations
● Sampling
● Ad Hominem
● Unproven vs. Proven False

If there are Q​ uantifier​ words like All, Some, Most, Few,

it's usually a good idea to diagram those arguments,
since the correct answer will match that structure.

​examples
All A's are B. Most A's are B.
All A's are C. Most B's are C.
Thus, All B's are C. Thus, Some A's are C.

Other arguments won't be Famous Flaw or Quantified,

in which case we should try to think of an objection
and then see if we can make that same objection work
with each answer choice (it should work with the
correct answer).

​examples
- Since no one can be both X and Y, if she's not X, she
must be Y.
(​couldn't she be ​neither?​)

- We need to choose between A and B. Since, she

prefers B and he prefers A, we should go with B.
(​wait, why are you choosing ​that p
​ oint of view, rather
than the other?)

- We can't prove that X is the culprit, nor can we prove

Y is the culprit. Thus, we can't prove that X or Y is the
culprit.
(​wait, what if they're the only two suspects? can't you
say for sure it was one or both of them?)
 LSAT Lab

Principle
What is a Principle? Strengthen + Principle
It's usually a C
​ onditional Rule​. It usually has normative Which of the following principles, if valid, most justifies
language (such as ​should, ought, justified, unjustified, the argument?
good, bad, permissible, impermissible​). Sometimes it's
phrased as a "rule-of-thumb", like "Marry the funniest - Find the CONCLUSION and the EVIDENCE.
person you can". In rare cases, it's phrased in a way - Pre-phrase "IF premise, THEN conclusion".
that weighs one consideration over another, such as
"It's more important to avoid the unknown risks of The correct answer should sound like 1/2 Premise
vaping than it is to capitalize on the known benefits of language, 1/2 Conclusion language.
vaping."
Try to get rid of answer choices quickly if they don't
What is a Proposition / Generalization? have Conclusion language

Propositions tend to refer to a specific thing in a Get rid of anything that puts the Conclusion on the left
general way, such as referring to Harry Potter fans side of the arrow.
going in costume to Comic-Con by saying "Enthusiasts
of a popular book series sometimes attend a If there are competing interests being weighed
book-themed gathering with other like-minded against each other, the correct answer may rank one
enthusiasts." Generalizations are claims that apply to a thing as more important than another.
multitude of cases (even if not all cases). "Kevin is at
the gym" is just a specific claim. "Kevin often goes to It’s fine for these to be broader or stronger than
the gym on weekdays" is a generalization. needed, since it’s offered on an “if valid” platter.

is Principle a question type?

Wow, rhetorical device, great question! No, it's usually Necessary Assumption + Principle
just a twist on other familiar question types or tasks. Which of the following principles most conforms to
the reasoning in the argument?

Strengthen + Apply the Principle Which of the following most accurately expresses the
principle underlying the reasoning above?
Which of the following, if true, most justifies the
application of the principle? Same as above, except for that last point. Your
principle shouldn’t sound stronger than the argument.
Diagram the Principle carefully.

Verify that the Application is concluding the right side

of your rule. Ask yourself whether the Application
established the left side of the rule (it didn't, but in
what way did it fall short?)

Go find an answer that clearly establishes the trigger

of the principle is applicable.
 2

Parallel + Principle Get rid of any answers that aren't concluding the right
side of the rule.

Which of the following arguments illustrates a If right side matches, is left side clearly established?
principle most similar to that illustrated in the
argument? If stimulus provides two rules, then start each answer
by reading its Conclusion so you know whether to use
Which of the following most closely conforms to the the first rule or second rule (they will have different
principle to which the reasoning in the passage right sides, so they will be useful for different
conforms? conclusions)

Read the argument and then try to articulate some

sort of gist-y principle that took the author from her
evidence to her conclusion.
Most Supported + Proposition/Generalization
The situation described above most clearly illustrates
Keep that same principle in your head as you analyze which of the following propositions / generalizations?
each answer, and pick the one that best matches.
Which of the following is best illustrated by the
If more than one answer seems plausible, revisit the example described above?
original argument and try to make your principle
Read the paragraph.

Most Supported + Principle Think about what “moral to the story” or “causal
Read the situation, paying attention for Causal difference-maker” you’re hearing about.
Difference-Maker language or Pivots.
Look for a very s​ afely w
​ orded answer that reinforces
The correct answer will safely reinforce the Causal that gist-y synopsis.
Difference-Maker or Reconcile the Pivot by
synthesizing what came before with what came after.
Must Be False + Principle
Which of the following is most clearly a violation of
Apply the Principle the principle cited above?
Which of the following situations conforms best to the
principle cited above? Each of the following situations is consistent with the
principle cited above EXCEPT:
The principle above most helps to justify which one of
the following? Diagram the conditional.

Diagram the conditional rule (careful with and's / or's) Look for an answer that establishes the Left side, but
says the opposite of the Right side.
We frequently need to contrapose it so that we have
"Criteria" on the left and "Judgy Language" on the
right. (for example, if you heard "deception is justified
Weaken + Principle
only for surprise parties", you would want to use the The situation above is most at odds with which one of
version of that that looks like "If not for surprise party the following principles?
(criterion), then not justified (judgy term).
Find an answer where the Left side applies, but the
situation is going the opposite of the Right side
 3

Strengthen + Apply the Principle

TENDENCIES
These have become more popular over the past
twenty tests. They're pretty awesome! We're given a
Principle, and then an argument is attempting to
Strengthen + Principle apply that principle.

These are the most common type of Principle

It will be concluding the right side of the principle, but
question. They actually feel way more like Sufficient
it will always fail to completely establish the left side of
Assumption than Strengthen. But we classify them
the principle. So all we need to do is pick an answer
under Strengthen because the question stem says that finally makes clear that the left side of the
"which principle m
​ ost j​ ustifies", not "fully justifies". principle has been triggered.

Nevertheless, come at these mofo's like they're

Sufficient Assumption, and expect it to be all about
Most Supported + Apply the Principle
pre-phrasing an "IF premise, THEN conclusion" These are fun, since the stimulus is so short.

conditional and then reading five answers that are full

The stimulus just spells out a principle, a rule we need
of conditional logic trigger words.
to follow. We go check out the five answers and try to
apply that rule (i.e. we make sure that the Evidence in
This is a question type where those with conditional an answer choice triggers the left side of the principle
logic skills can find quick eliminations, and those and we make sure the Conclusion is the right side of
without conditional logic skills can be baited into the principle).
picking answers that have the right ideas, but in the
wrong logical order. You can sometimes get rid of answers real quickly by
glancing at their Conclusion and verifying whether it
matches the right side of the rule.

Necessary Assumption + Principle The principles/rules we're given are almost always in
Not that common, but recent tests have had a few. It's conditional logic, and frequently test some of the
essentially the same as the Strengthen version. more complicated moves in conditional logic: dealing
with "unless", bi-conditionals, and/or’s.
We are still pre-phrasing "IF premise, THEN
conclusion" and then expecting 5 answers that are
conditionals, volume knobs (the more this, the more
Parallel + Principle
that), or normative "should rule-of-thumb" ideas. These are rare. Normally, Parallel questions feature
arguments that have conditional logic terms or
Because the question stem says ​conform t​ o the quantified (some/most/all) terms, and we typically
author's reasoning, we can't go over-strong, but very diagram those. We jot down a recipe for how many
few wrong answers are wrong for that reason (they premises there are and what each premise is doing in
have incorrect "IF prem, THEN conc" logical order or relation to the other premises and the conclusion.
one of their concepts doesn't match up with the
argument) But other arguments on Parallel questions don't have
those features, so we don't diagram, and instead we
just pre-phrase a gist-y slogan like "If it was true
before, it'll be true again" or "If you did if for them, you
should do it for me". Parallel-Principle questions are all
that second type.
 4

Most Supported + Proposition/Generalization

These questions are the only time that you'll see
Proposition or Generalization used instead of Principle.

These are fairly similar to usual Most Supported

questions, but easier.

First of all, they tell a bit of a story, usually featuring

some Causal Difference-Maker, You don't have to hunt
around for combinable facts, just safely summarize
what you were just told.

Secondly, a ​lot o
​ f wrong answers are just too strong.
The paragraph describes one little scenario. It's
enough evidence to claim "things like that can
happen" / "sometimes things like that occur". It's not
enough evidence to claim "things like that c ​ ommonly /
often / usually / always​ occur".

Must Be False + Principle

These are very, very rare. If we're ever contradicting,
violating, or refuting a conditional, we're doing the
same thing: looking at a situation where the Trigger of
the rule is applicable, but the Outcome is not. (Left
side is true, Right side isn't).

Weaken + Principle
There might be two of these, ever, total. The correct
answer is a principle that goes against the situation we
read in the stimulus. The correct answer will be a
principle whose Left side matches the situation but
whose Right side does not.