Logical Reasoning and Analytical Reasoning were distinct LSAT sections: Logical Reasoning used short passages, while Analytical Reasoning used rule-based scenarios commonly called logic games. Analytical Reasoning is now historical; for the current LSAT, prioritize Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension.
The short answer
Starting with the August 2024 LSAT, Analytical Reasoning was replaced by a second scored Logical Reasoning section. The current multiple-choice LSAT has two scored Logical Reasoning sections, one scored Reading Comprehension section, and one unscored variable section that is either Logical Reasoning or Reading Comprehension. Each multiple-choice section is 35 minutes. LSAC’s format announcement and current test specifications describe this structure.
So, for current test preparation, do not give historical logic games a major share of your study time. Build your preparation around argument analysis, evidence, assumptions, inferences, explanations, and Reading Comprehension.
Logical Reasoning vs. Analytical Reasoning
| Feature | Logical Reasoning | Analytical Reasoning, historical |
|---|---|---|
| Basic unit | A short passage followed by a question about its reasoning | A scenario with rules and several questions applying those rules |
| Main task | Analyze, evaluate, complete, or draw conclusions about reasoning | Determine what the rules allow, require, or rule out |
| Typical scratch work | Brief notes on the task, structure, evidence, or reasoning issue | A diagram, setup, or notation system |
| Current LSAT status | Appears in two scored sections | Retired after the June 2024 LSAT |
Logical Reasoning presents short passages in ordinary language. LSAC says these questions assess skills including recognizing argument parts, drawing supported conclusions, identifying assumptions and flaws, determining the effect of additional evidence, applying principles, identifying explanations, and recognizing points of disagreement. LSAC’s Logical Reasoning overview explains the range of skills tested.
Historical Analytical Reasoning asked you to apply a stated set of rules to an arrangement, sequence, grouping, or similar scenario. A strong setup could produce deductions before you looked at the choices. Logical Reasoning usually works differently: the decisive issue often sits in the relationship between claims in prose, not in a diagram.
The sections still had an important habit in common: draw only the conclusion the information supports. The material and workflow, however, were different enough that old logic-game study plans should not control a current LSAT schedule.
What changed when logic games disappeared?
The change was structural. LSAC replaced the former Analytical Reasoning section with a second Logical Reasoning section beginning with the August 2024 LSAT. LSAC’s announcement states that the revised test continues to assess analytical and deductive reasoning through Logical Reasoning.
LSAC explained that it had examined alternatives after concerns were raised about the diagramming demands of logic games for blind test takers, and concluded that a second Logical Reasoning section was the best way to continue assessing reasoning skills while addressing those concerns. LSAC’s announcement
That changes the allocation problem for a current test taker:
- A schedule that reserves a large block for ordering and grouping games is outdated.
- A weakness diagnosis based on the former scored-section mix is outdated.
- Logical Reasoning deserves sustained attention because it appears twice among the scored sections.
Old games can still be worthwhile as recreational logic practice. They are not, however, a direct path to points on the current LSAT.
Use a workflow that matches the stimulus
The first move is always the same: identify the question task. Read the stem closely enough to know what the answer must do before you start judging answer choices. LSAC similarly advises test takers not to choose a statement merely because it is true; it must answer the question asked. LSAC’s suggested approach to Logical Reasoning
After that, your method should depend on the stimulus.
| Stimulus type | What to identify | What to seek in the answer choices |
|---|---|---|
| Argument | Conclusion, premises, and the unsupported link between them | A choice that performs the stated task on that link |
| Fact set or inference | Each stated fact and its constraints | A consequence that must follow without adding assumptions |
| Apparent paradox | The two facts that seem inconsistent | A fact that allows both facts to be true |
| Point at issue | Each speaker’s position on the same claim | A statement one speaker accepts and the other rejects |
For an argument, identify the conclusion and support before deciding whether an answer strengthens, weakens, describes a flaw, supplies an assumption, or does something else. The “gap” is not simply a missing fact. It is the unsupported step from the evidence to the conclusion.
For an inference question, do not force a conclusion-premise-gap template onto a stimulus that contains no argument. Inventory the facts, translate conditional language carefully, and derive only what those facts require. A choice can be plausible in real life and still fail because the stimulus does not establish it.
For a paradox question, name the tension in plain language. Then look for an answer that removes the tension rather than one that merely repeats a surprising fact. For a point-at-issue question, write each speaker’s position in a few words before comparing the choices; this prevents you from selecting a claim that both speakers would accept.
For a fuller map of common tasks, see this LSAT Logical Reasoning question type guide.
Redirect useful logic-game habits
Former game preparation was not wasted. Several habits transfer well when you apply them to arguments and fact patterns.
| Former game habit | Current Logical Reasoning use |
|---|---|
| Respect every rule | Treat qualifiers such as “some,” “most,” “only,” and “unless” as meaningful constraints. |
| Separate could from must | Distinguish a supported inference from a merely possible claim. |
| Test choices against all constraints | Test each choice against the exact task and the text of the stimulus. |
| Keep deductions visible | Write a short note on the structure or key facts instead of building a game board. |
Causal arguments are a useful example. If a conclusion says one event caused another, evidence that both events occurred may not be enough. Ask what the argument leaves open: another cause, reversed causation, a change in measurement, or a missing comparison. That question targets the reasoning rather than the topic.
A current-format practice routine
Use official current-format material for timing and full-test practice. Because the unscored variable section can be either Logical Reasoning or Reading Comprehension and can appear anywhere in the test, treat every section as scored on test day. LSAC’s question-type information confirms this constraint.
For targeted review, keep an error log with fields that work across stimulus types:
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Question task | The precise job: strengthen, inference, flaw, resolve, and so on |
| Stimulus structure or key facts | Argument roles, conditional relationships, speaker positions, or the apparent conflict |
| Reasoning issue | The gap, missed constraint, overlooked distinction, or unsupported assumption |
| Why your answer failed | Misread task, attractive but irrelevant choice, missed qualifier, or faulty inference |
| Why the credited answer works | Its direct logical effect on the task |
Once a week, complete a 35-minute Logical Reasoning section under realistic conditions, then review it without rushing. On another day, drill a small set built around one recurring issue in your log. If your mistakes cluster around causal arguments, do not just do more random questions; practice identifying the alternative explanation each conclusion fails to rule out.
For guided explanation practice, use LSAT Logical Reasoning questions with full explanations.
FAQ
Is Analytical Reasoning still on the LSAT?
No. Analytical Reasoning, commonly called logic games, ended after the June 2024 LSAT. The current multiple-choice test has two scored Logical Reasoning sections, one scored Reading Comprehension section, and one unscored variable section. LSAC’s August 2024 format announcement explains the change.
Are Logical Reasoning and logic games the same thing?
No. Logical Reasoning examines short passages and asks about reasoning, evidence, inferences, explanations, or disagreement. Historical logic games required applying rules to a scenario. Both reward precision, but they require different solving methods.
Should I use old LSAT logic games for practice?
Not as a central part of a current LSAT plan. Prioritize current-format Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension first. Return to old games only if you enjoy them or want extra general logic practice after your scored-section priorities are covered.
What should I do first if I previously studied logic games?
Take a timed Logical Reasoning section, classify each error by task and reasoning issue, then drill the pattern that repeats most often. Replace game-board work with concise notes that match the stimulus: argument structure, stated facts, competing positions, or the apparent conflict.