Blog

Logical Reasoning

Exploring advanced LSAT Flaw Questions, this guide analyses how vague answer choices, causal‑conditional slip‑ups, abstract stimuli and multi‑flaw decoys undermine arguments in Logical Reasoning. Providing on references to specific PrepTest question, this guide lays out clear patterns to help you spot each reasoning error.

Logical Reasoning

This article focuses on the approach to handling Role questions on the LSAT. It explains how these questions ask you to identify the function of specific statements within an argument.

Logical Reasoning

This article will explore the approach to solving Principle question types in the LSAT Logical Reasoning section. It will explain how to identify, apply, and spot violations of principles in arguments by focusing on formal logic and assumptions.

Logical Reasoning

The article provides guidance on tackling Parallel Reasoning and Parallel Flaw questions in the LSAT, emphasizing the importance of understanding and replicating logical patterns. The approach involves dissecting the argument structure, focusing on the logical connections rather than content, and using diagramming techniques to identify and match reasoning patterns.

Logical Reasoning

Paradox questions present two seemingly contradictory statements and challenge the test-taker to identify the explanation or reconcile the discrepancy. The article breaks down the approach into identifying the two phenomena, understanding the assumption the LSAT writers want us to make, and using skepticism to pick apart the paradox before selecting the answer choice that best explains or resolves it.

Logical Reasoning

Necessary Assumption (NA) questions test your ability to identify assumptions that must be true for an argument's conclusion to hold. Unlike Sufficient Assumption (SA) questions, which guarantee the conclusion, NA questions focus on assumptions that make the conclusion possible. Key strategies include using the negation test to confirm the correct assumption.

Logical Reasoning

Strengthen and weaken questions on the LSAT ask you to evaluate an argument by determining how additional information might impact its validity, but not necessarily asking you to prove with 100% certainty the truth or falsity of the argument’s conclusion. Strengthening questions ask you to find information that makes the argument’s conclusion more likely to be true while weakening questions involve identifying information that makes the conclusion less likely to be true. This article addresses how to approach these questions by identifying and addressing the assumptions underlying the argument.

Logical Reasoning

This guide explains how to approach Must be True and Must be False questions on the LSAT by assessing the validity of information to guarantee or nullify a statement, and questioning whether there is room for doubt. This guide also introduces a truth spectrum as a visual aid to help approach the answer choices.

Logical Reasoning

Learn how to identify Most Helps Justify (MHJ) questions. MHJ questions on the LSAT require selecting an answer that strengthens the argument, though not necessarily to the point of guaranteeing the conclusion. These questions differ from Sufficient Assumption questions, which provide an answer that fills all logical gaps and ensures the conclusion is true.

Logical Reasoning

Learn how to identify Most Strongly Supported (MSS) questions. The key to answering these questions is to focus on the relevancy of the premises and be cautious of strong language in the answer choices, as softer conclusions are easier to support.

Logical Reasoning

Learn how to identify SA questions, analyze the stimulus to determine the argument, and apply a step-by-step approach to find the sufficient assumption that guarantees the conclusion.

Logical Reasoning

This guide explains how to approach "Evaluate the Argument" questions in the LSAT's Logical Reasoning section. It highlights the importance of assessing the strength or weakness of an argument by considering how additional information affects its persuasiveness.