LSAT Logical Reasoning gives you a short argument and asks exactly one thing about it: name its flaw, find what it depends on, hurt it, help it, describe its moves, or track its conditional logic. Roughly three-quarters of Logical Reasoning questions fall into the five families on this page, which is why practicing by type beats practicing at random — every question you do teaches a move you will reuse, instead of blurring into the next one.
All ten samples below are original questions written for this page in the authentic format: a stimulus, a stem, five answer choices, one credited response. They are not recycled from any official test, so you cannot have seen them before, and the explanations do the thing most answer keys skip — they tell you why each tempting wrong answer was built to tempt you.
Work them untimed here with the explanations open, then take the type quizzes to drill each family. When you can name the question type from the stem alone before reading the choices, you are most of the way to a Logical Reasoning score you can trust.
Want the exam feeling instead?
Our 20-question logical reasoning paper runs on a 20-minute clock with nothing marked until you submit — then you get a score report with per-type accuracy, the closest thing to LSAT section pressure on this site.
Take the 20-minute timed testThe five question types, with sample questions
Flaw questions
2 sample questionsFlaw questions hand you a broken argument and ask you to name the break. The credited answer describes an error the argument actually commits — most often a correlation read as causation, a rival explanation ignored, raw numbers compared without rates, or a conclusion far stronger than its evidence. The traps are descriptions of errors the argument did not make: they sound damning, but if you check them against the text, the argument never does that thing. Predict the flaw in your own words before reading a single option.
Stems to recognize: "The reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that…" · "Which one of the following describes a flaw in the argument?"
Sample 1
Columnist: Employees at firms that offer nap rooms report far higher job satisfaction than employees at firms that do not. Clearly, installing a nap room is an effective way for a firm to raise its employees' job satisfaction.
The reasoning in the columnist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
- Aattacks the motives of firms that have not installed nap rooms rather than addressing their stated reasons
- Boverlooks the possibility that firms that already treat employees well are the ones most likely to install nap rooms
- Cpresumes, without justification, that job satisfaction is the only benefit a nap room provides
- Ddraws a conclusion about all firms from a sample consisting only of large corporations
- Etakes for granted that employees would use a nap room if one were available
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: B. overlooks the possibility that firms that already treat employees well are the ones most likely to install nap rooms
🐱 The argument sees a correlation (nap rooms alongside high satisfaction) and reads it as causation in one particular direction. But a third factor — a generally generous workplace culture — could produce both the nap room and the satisfaction, in which case installing a nap room at a stingy firm would change nothing. That is exactly what (B) says. (A) describes an ad hominem that never happens; (C) and (E) raise points the argument does not depend on; (D) invents a sampling detail the stimulus never mentions — a classic trap of criticizing the argument for something it did not do.
Sample 2
City auditor: Hospital Northside generated three times as many patient complaints last year as Hospital Westgate. Residents seeking care should therefore prefer Westgate, where the quality of care is evidently higher.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the auditor's reasoning?
- AIt relies on the testimony of patients, who are not experts in evaluating medical care.
- BIt assumes that quality of care is the only consideration relevant to choosing a hospital.
- CIt draws a comparative conclusion without considering how many patients each hospital treated
- DIt presupposes that every complaint filed at Northside was justified.
- EIt generalizes from complaints about one department to the hospital as a whole.
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: C. It draws a comparative conclusion without considering how many patients each hospital treated
🐱 Three times the complaints means nothing until you know the patient volumes: if Northside treated five times as many patients, its complaint rate is actually lower. Raw counts compared across differently-sized groups is one of the most common flaw patterns — (C). (A) and (D) each attack the complaints data itself, but even granting the data, the reasoning still fails, so neither names the core flaw. (B) overstates the conclusion — 'should prefer' on quality grounds doesn't require quality to be the only consideration. (E) describes a detail the stimulus never gives.
Take the full flaw quiz (12 questions) →Necessary assumption questions
2 sample questionsA necessary assumption is something the argument cannot survive without — an unstated plank between the evidence and the conclusion. The test: negate the answer choice. If the negated version destroys the argument, you have found it. Necessary assumptions are usually modest claims ('at least some commuters use the ferry'), which is why the classic trap is the answer that sounds strongest ('the bridge takes no time at all'). Strong sounds helpful; the argument only needs the minimum.
Stems to recognize: "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?" · "The conclusion follows logically only if which one of the following is assumed?"
Sample 3
Transit planner: Once the harbor bridge opens next spring, the average commute from Eastport to downtown will get shorter, because commuters will no longer have to wait for the ferry.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the planner's argument depends?
- AMost Eastport residents commute to downtown every working day.
- BCrossing the new bridge will take no time at all.
- CThe ferry will stop operating once the bridge opens.
- DAt least some Eastport-to-downtown commuters currently travel by ferry
- ENo other bridge project in the region has ever failed to shorten commutes.
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: D. At least some Eastport-to-downtown commuters currently travel by ferry
🐱 If literally no commuter uses the ferry today, then removing the ferry wait changes no one's commute and the argument collapses — so (D) must be true for the argument to work. That is the negation test in action. (B) is far stronger than needed: the bridge only has to beat the ferry-plus-wait, not take zero time — necessary assumption answers are modest, and 'no time at all' is the classic too-strong trap. (A) is about how many people benefit, not whether the average drops. (C) isn't needed: the argument works whether or not the ferry keeps running. (E) is irrelevant history.
Sample 4
Nutritionist: The berries sold at Hollow Farm's stand this week are safe to eat. The farm sprayed its berry fields with pesticide three weeks ago, and that pesticide fully breaks down within ten days of application.
The nutritionist's conclusion follows logically only if which one of the following is assumed?
- AThe fields have not been sprayed with that pesticide again within the past ten days
- BNo pesticide of any kind is ever safe for human consumption.
- CHollow Farm's berries are more thoroughly inspected than berries from other farms.
- DThe pesticide in question breaks down faster on berries than on other crops.
- EBerries sprayed with pesticide are unsafe to eat for exactly ten days after spraying.
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: A. The fields have not been sprayed with that pesticide again within the past ten days
🐱 The evidence covers one spraying, three weeks back. If the fields were sprayed again last Tuesday, the ten-day breakdown clock restarts and the conclusion falls apart — so the argument silently depends on (A). (E) is a trap: the argument needs the pesticide to be gone after ten days, not a precise unsafe-for-exactly-ten-days schedule. (B) actively contradicts the argument's direction. (C) and (D) add comparisons the argument never leans on. When a stimulus gives you evidence about one past event, ask what else could have happened since — that gap is where the necessary assumption usually lives.
Take the full assumption quiz (12 questions) →Strengthen & weaken questions
2 sample questionsThese questions treat the argument as a live hypothesis and ask which new fact moves it most. The pressure point is nearly always the causal link or the unexamined alternative: the strongest weakener supplies a complete rival cause; the strongest strengthener rules the rival cause out. Accept every option as true — your job is to measure impact, not plausibility. The traps are facts that are about the topic but leave the link between evidence and conclusion untouched: costs, court challenges, what other cities did.
Stems to recognize: "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens / most seriously weakens the argument?"
Sample 5
Archaeologist: The pottery unearthed at the Kestrel Valley site bears the distinctive spiral glaze of the coastal Amaran culture. This shows that the valley's inhabitants traded with the Amarans rather than developing the glaze on their own.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the archaeologist's argument?
- ASpiral patterns appear in the artwork of many unrelated ancient cultures.
- BThe glaze on the Kestrel Valley pottery is chemically identical to clay deposits found only on the Amaran coast
- CThe Kestrel Valley site also contained tools made from locally quarried stone.
- DAmaran pottery has been found at several other inland sites.
- EThe Kestrel Valley inhabitants were skilled potters in their own right.
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: B. The glaze on the Kestrel Valley pottery is chemically identical to clay deposits found only on the Amaran coast
🐱 The argument's weak point is the alternative it names itself: maybe the valley potters invented the glaze independently. (B) closes that gap with physical evidence — if the glaze material only exists on the Amaran coast, it had to travel, which is trade. (A) actually weakens by making independent invention more plausible. (D) is mildly consistent with trade networks but says nothing about this site. (C) is neutral, and (E) cuts slightly the wrong way — skilled local potters could more easily have invented the glaze themselves. Strengthen answers usually work by ruling out the strongest rival explanation.
Sample 6
Mayor: In the six months since we installed speed cameras on Grand Avenue, traffic accidents there have fallen by twenty percent. The cameras are clearly making the avenue safer.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the mayor's argument?
- ASome drivers who received camera tickets have contested them in court.
- BAccidents on Grand Avenue had already been declining slowly for two years before the cameras were installed.
- CA new highway bypass opened the same month the cameras were installed, diverting most through traffic away from Grand Avenue
- DSeveral nearby cities have reported mixed results from their own speed camera programs.
- EThe cameras cost substantially more to operate than they generate in fines.
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: C. A new highway bypass opened the same month the cameras were installed, diverting most through traffic away from Grand Avenue
🐱 (C) supplies a complete alternative cause: with most through traffic gone, accidents would have dropped whether or not a single camera was switched on. That severs the link between the cameras and the result. (B) is the tempting runner-up — a pre-existing trend does undercut the causal story, but a slow two-year decline can't account for a sharp twenty-percent drop in six months, so it weakens far less than (C). (A) and (E) are about enforcement friction and cost, not safety. (D) is about other cities, and mixed results elsewhere don't speak to what happened on Grand Avenue.
Take the full strengthen & weaken quiz (12 questions) →Method of reasoning questions
2 sample questionsMethod questions ask how the argument moves, not whether it succeeds. Treat each answer choice as a checklist of verbs — 'offers counterexamples,' 'draws an analogy,' 'cites an authority' — and verify every verb against the text. If the argument never lists counterexamples, an option that says it does is dead, no matter how sophisticated it sounds. The most reliable trap describes a flaw when the stem only asked for a description, or describes a move that is almost right but one verb off.
Stems to recognize: "The argument proceeds by…" · "Sam responds to Rhea by…" · "The role played in the argument by X is…"
Sample 7
Essayist: People say a city's history is written in its architecture. But a city is more like a palimpsest — a manuscript scraped clean and written over, on which traces of every earlier text still show through. New buildings never fully erase the streets, property lines, and habits laid down by the old ones.
The essayist's argument proceeds by
- Aoffering a series of counterexamples to a widely accepted generalization
- Breplacing one analogy with another that, it is claimed, better captures the phenomenon being described
- Cshowing that a popular view leads to a logical contradiction
- Dappealing to the authority of historians of urban development
- Earguing that because two things share one property, they must share several others
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: B. replacing one analogy with another that, it is claimed, better captures the phenomenon being described
🐱 The essayist takes the standard metaphor (history written in architecture), swaps in a rival metaphor (the palimpsest), and gives a reason the new one fits better — old traces persist under the new text. That is (B). No counterexamples are listed, so (A) fails; nothing is derived into contradiction, so (C) fails; no experts are cited — (D). (E) describes a false-analogy flaw, and method answers must describe what the argument actually does, not accuse it of an error it doesn't commit. On method questions, match each option's verbs against the text like a checklist.
Sample 8
Rhea: No animal that lacks vocal cords can communicate detailed information to others of its kind.
Sam: That can't be right. Honeybees have no vocal cords, yet a returning forager's dance tells the hive the direction and distance of a food source with remarkable precision.
Sam responds to Rhea's claim by
- Apresenting a counterexample that the claim, if true, could not allow
- Bshowing that Rhea's claim rests on an ambiguous use of the word "communicate"
- Carguing that Rhea is not qualified to make claims about animal behavior
- Dproposing an alternative explanation for the phenomenon Rhea describes
- Edemonstrating that Rhea's claim is inconsistent with other claims Rhea has made
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: A. presenting a counterexample that the claim, if true, could not allow
🐱 Rhea's claim is a universal rule — no animal without vocal cords can do this. One solid counterexample sinks a universal, and the bee dance is exactly that: no vocal cords, detailed communication. So (A). Sam never analyzes the word 'communicate' (B), never attacks Rhea personally (C), offers no alternative explanation of anything (D), and cites no other claims of Rhea's (E). Dialogue-format method questions almost always ask how the second speaker pushes back — name the move, don't judge whether it succeeds.
Take the full method quiz (12 questions) →Conditional logic questions
2 sample questionsConditional questions turn on two words: sufficient and necessary. 'If A then B' makes A sufficient; 'only if' and 'unless' mark necessary conditions. The two legal moves are applying the rule forward and taking the contrapositive; the two illegal moves are the mistaken reversal (B, therefore A) and treating a necessary condition as a guarantee. Translate every rule into arrow notation before judging anything — most wrong answers on parallel-flaw questions are valid contrapositives dressed up to look suspicious.
Stems to recognize: "The reasoning is flawed because it…" (on conditional stimuli) · "Which argument exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to the above?"
Sample 9
Whenever the museum receives a major donation, it holds a gala. The museum held a gala last Saturday. Therefore, the museum must have received a major donation.
The reasoning above is flawed because it
- Atreats an event that guarantees a gala as if it were the only thing that could lead to one
- Bconcludes that a gala occurred without adequate evidence that it did
- Cassumes that major donations are the museum's only source of funding
- Dtakes for granted that the museum holds galas regularly
- Efails to define what counts as a major donation
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: A. treats an event that guarantees a gala as if it were the only thing that could lead to one
🐱 The rule says donation → gala: a donation is sufficient for a gala. It does not say galas happen only after donations — the museum might also hold one for an anniversary or an exhibition opening. Concluding backward from the gala to the donation treats the sufficient condition as necessary, which is what (A) describes. (B) has it backwards — the gala is stated fact. (C) confuses funding with the logic of the rule. (D) and (E) are details the argument never needs. The mistaken-reversal is the single most tested conditional error: sufficient-to-necessary, in one direction only.
Sample 10
Agricultural bulletin: A wheat field cannot produce a high yield unless it receives adequate nitrogen. The Harlow field received adequate nitrogen this season. Its yield will therefore be high.
Which one of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to that in the bulletin's argument?
- AA team cannot win the championship unless it qualifies for the playoffs. The Rovers qualified for the playoffs, so they will win the championship
- BEvery guest who attended the reception signed the register. Kim's signature is not in the register, so Kim did not attend the reception.
- CA bridge is safe only if it is inspected annually. This bridge was not inspected annually, so it is not safe.
- DAll of the bakery's croissants are made with butter. This pastry is made with butter, so it is one of the bakery's croissants.
- EIf the alarm is set, the door locks automatically. The alarm was set, so the door locked automatically.
▶Show answer & explanation
Answer: A. A team cannot win the championship unless it qualifies for the playoffs. The Rovers qualified for the playoffs, so they will win the championship
🐱 'Cannot X unless Y' makes Y necessary for X. The bulletin then treats the necessary condition (nitrogen) as if it guaranteed the result (high yield). (A) repeats the error exactly: playoffs are necessary for the championship, and the argument treats qualifying as sufficient for winning. (B) is valid — a correct contrapositive. (C) is also a valid contrapositive of an 'only if' rule. (E) is a valid application of a sufficient condition. (D) is flawed, but differently: it reverses 'all croissants have butter' into 'butter things are croissants.' Parallel-flaw questions require matching the specific error, not just finding another bad argument.
Take the full necessary vs. sufficient quiz (12 questions) →