Do the LSAT flashcards include Logic Games?

No. LSAC removed the Analytical Reasoning ('Logic Games') section after June 2024, so it is no longer tested. These flashcards cover the current test: Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension, plus the conditional logic and flaw patterns that drive them.

Are flashcards effective for the LSAT?

Yes. Flashcards use active recall — retrieving an answer from memory — which research shows is one of the most effective study methods, especially in short, spaced sessions. They're ideal for cementing the LSAT's question types, the conditional-logic rules, and the recurring flaw patterns.

How should I study with these LSAT flashcards?

Lead with Logical Reasoning — two of the three scored sections are LR. Drill the question types and the conditional-logic deck until the rules are automatic, then the flaw catalog, then Reading Comprehension. Mix the modes: flip to learn, type to test recall, match for speed, and quiz to check yourself before a full practice test.

Are the LSAT flashcards free?

Yes — 100% free, all four study modes, no paywall.

Do these flashcards match the current LSAT?

Yes. The cards reflect the post-August-2024 LSAT — two scored Logical Reasoning sections and one scored Reading Comprehension section, with no Logic Games — and are organized to the skills LSAC's official test format describes.

A condition that, if met, GUARANTEES the result. In 'If A then B,' A is sufficient for B — A alone is enough to know B.

Necessary Assumption question

Asks for an unstated premise the argument REQUIRES to be true. Test it with the Negation Test: if negating the answer destroys the argument, it's necessary.

Sufficient Assumption question

Asks for a premise that, if added, would GUARANTEE the conclusion. Often phrased 'the conclusion follows logically if which one is assumed?' Look to bridge a new term in the conclusion.

Asks which answer makes the conclusion more likely. The right answer adds support, rules out an alternative explanation, or affirms an assumption. It need not prove the conclusion.

Asks which answer makes the conclusion less likely. The right answer attacks the link between premises and conclusion, often by raising an alternative cause or counterexample.

Asks you to describe the error in the argument's reasoning (e.g., 'the argument is flawed because it...'). Name the reasoning error in the abstract; the answer describes a flaw type.

Inference / Must Be True question

Asks what MUST be true based on the stimulus. Treat every statement as true and combine them; the answer is fully provable from the text. Avoid answers that go even slightly beyond it.

Most Strongly Supported question

A softer cousin of Must Be True: the answer is the one the statements best support, even if not airtight. Pick the most provable, least extreme choice.

Main Point (Main Conclusion) question

Asks for the author's main conclusion. Find what the rest of the argument is offered to prove; rephrase it in your own words before reading the choices.

Parallel Flaw question

A Parallel Reasoning variant: find the answer that commits the SAME logical error as the stimulus. First name the flaw, then find the choice that repeats it.

Principle (Identify/Apply) question

Either find the broad rule that the argument illustrates, or apply a stated principle to a new case. Match the principle to the specific situation precisely.

Paradox / Resolve-the-Discrepancy question

The stimulus presents two facts that seem to conflict. The right answer explains how BOTH can be true at once — it resolves, not deepens, the puzzle.

Point at Issue (Disagreement) question

Two speakers argue; find the claim they DISAGREE about. The right answer is something one would affirm and the other would deny, and both addressed.

Evaluate the Argument question

Asks what information would most help judge the argument. The right answer is a question whose two possible answers would strengthen vs. weaken it.

Cannot Be True question

Asks which answer is impossible given the stimulus. The wrong answers could be true; the credited answer contradicts the statements.

Most Helpful to Know / Useful question

Variant of Evaluate or Strengthen: find the fact that would best inform whether the conclusion holds.

Conclusion vs. premise — how to tell them apart

Conclusion indicators: 'therefore, thus, hence, so, clearly, it follows that.' Premise indicators: 'because, since, for, given that, after all.' The conclusion is what the premises support.

Intermediate (sub) conclusion

A claim that is supported by one premise AND used to support the main conclusion. It's both a conclusion and a premise — common in Role and Main Point questions.

Two families of LR questions

MUST-BE-TRUE family (Inference, Main Point, Method, Parallel) treats the stimulus as given. The ASSUMPTION family (Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, Flaw, Evaluate) attacks the gap between premises and conclusion.

Attacking the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. 'You can't trust her climate claims — she drives an SUV.'

Circular reasoning (begging the question)

Using the conclusion as a premise — assuming what you're trying to prove. 'This book is the best because no other book is as good.'

Using one word in two different senses within the same argument, making it seem valid when it isn't. 'Nothing is better than peace; a sandwich is better than nothing; so a sandwich is better than peace.'

Correlation–causation flaw

Concluding that A causes B just because A and B occur together. Could be coincidence, reverse causation, or a third common cause.

Sampling / unrepresentative sample flaw

Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased to represent the whole group.

Necessary vs. sufficient confusion

Treating a necessary condition as if it were sufficient (or vice versa). 'You need water to live, so anyone with water will live' — flawed.

Distorting or exaggerating an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, then refuting the weaker version.

False dichotomy (either/or flaw)

Presenting only two options as if they were the only possibilities when others exist.

Appeal to authority (improper)

Treating a claim as true just because an authority — often one outside their field — said so.

Appeal to popularity (ad populum)

Concluding something is true or good because many people believe or do it.

Part-to-whole / whole-to-part (composition & division)

Composition: assuming what's true of the parts is true of the whole. Division: assuming what's true of the whole is true of each part.

Ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance)

Arguing that a claim is true because it hasn't been proven false (or false because it hasn't been proven true).

Drawing conclusions only from the cases that 'survived' a selection process, ignoring those that dropped out.

Conflating absolute and relative / percentage vs. number

Confusing a change in percentage with a change in raw number, or vice versa. A higher rate can coexist with a lower total.

Conditional logic error (illegal reversal/negation)

Concluding 'if not A then not B' (denying the antecedent) or 'if B then A' (affirming the consequent) from 'if A then B.' Both are invalid.

Overlooking an alternative explanation

Assuming one cause for an outcome while ignoring other plausible causes — the most common Weaken target.

Internal contradiction

The argument's own premises or claims conflict with each other.

Improper analogy / false comparison

Assuming two things alike in some ways are alike in the relevant way too, when the analogy breaks down.

Self-contradiction / self-undermining

An argument whose conclusion, if true, would undercut one of its own premises.

Jumping to a broad conclusion from too little evidence or one example.

Confusing correlation of timing (post hoc)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: assuming that because B followed A, A caused B.

Equating two different groups / term shift

Treating two distinct groups or terms as the same — a subtle scope shift between premise and conclusion.

Your FREE LSAT Flashcards 2026 – 200+ Cards

Q: What topics do the LSAT flashcards cover?

Five decks: Logical Reasoning question types (Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, Flaw, Inference, Parallel, Principle, Paradox, and more), logical flaws and fallacies, conditional and formal logic (sufficient vs. necessary, the contrapositive, quantifiers), Reading Comprehension strategy, and logic terms and exam strategy.

Realistic LSAT flashcards — Logical Reasoning question types, logical flaws, conditional logic, and Reading Comprehension. Flip, match, type, and quiz yourself.

How well do you know them?

LSAT Flashcards

Sufficient condition: A condition that, if met, GUARANTEES the result. In 'If A then B,' A is sufficient for B — A alone is enough to know B.
Necessary Assumption question: Asks for an unstated premise the argument REQUIRES to be true. Test it with the Negation Test: if negating the answer destroys the argument, it's necessary.
Sufficient Assumption question: Asks for a premise that, if added, would GUARANTEE the conclusion. Often phrased 'the conclusion follows logically if which one is assumed?' Look to bridge a new term in the conclusion.
Strengthen question: Asks which answer makes the conclusion more likely. The right answer adds support, rules out an alternative explanation, or affirms an assumption. It need not prove the conclusion.
Weaken question: Asks which answer makes the conclusion less likely. The right answer attacks the link between premises and conclusion, often by raising an alternative cause or counterexample.
Flaw question: Asks you to describe the error in the argument's reasoning (e.g., 'the argument is flawed because it...'). Name the reasoning error in the abstract; the answer describes a flaw type.
Inference / Must Be True question: Asks what MUST be true based on the stimulus. Treat every statement as true and combine them; the answer is fully provable from the text. Avoid answers that go even slightly beyond it.
Most Strongly Supported question: A softer cousin of Must Be True: the answer is the one the statements best support, even if not airtight. Pick the most provable, least extreme choice.
Main Point (Main Conclusion) question: Asks for the author's main conclusion. Find what the rest of the argument is offered to prove; rephrase it in your own words before reading the choices.
Method of Reasoning question: Asks HOW the argument proceeds (e.g., 'argues by analogy,' 'cites a counterexample'). Describe the structure of the reasoning, not its content.
Parallel Reasoning question: Asks which answer has the same logical structure as the stimulus. Match the conclusion type, the validity, and the form — ignore the topic.
Parallel Flaw question: A Parallel Reasoning variant: find the answer that commits the SAME logical error as the stimulus. First name the flaw, then find the choice that repeats it.
Principle (Identify/Apply) question: Either find the broad rule that the argument illustrates, or apply a stated principle to a new case. Match the principle to the specific situation precisely.
Paradox / Resolve-the-Discrepancy question: The stimulus presents two facts that seem to conflict. The right answer explains how BOTH can be true at once — it resolves, not deepens, the puzzle.
Point at Issue (Disagreement) question: Two speakers argue; find the claim they DISAGREE about. The right answer is something one would affirm and the other would deny, and both addressed.
Role of a Statement question: A portion is highlighted; identify its function (premise, conclusion, intermediate conclusion, opposing view). Ask: what work does this sentence do in the argument?
Evaluate the Argument question: Asks what information would most help judge the argument. The right answer is a question whose two possible answers would strengthen vs. weaken it.
Cannot Be True question: Asks which answer is impossible given the stimulus. The wrong answers could be true; the credited answer contradicts the statements.
Most Helpful to Know / Useful question: Variant of Evaluate or Strengthen: find the fact that would best inform whether the conclusion holds.
Conclusion vs. premise — how to tell them apart: Conclusion indicators: 'therefore, thus, hence, so, clearly, it follows that.' Premise indicators: 'because, since, for, given that, after all.' The conclusion is what the premises support.
Intermediate (sub) conclusion: A claim that is supported by one premise AND used to support the main conclusion. It's both a conclusion and a premise — common in Role and Main Point questions.
Two families of LR questions: MUST-BE-TRUE family (Inference, Main Point, Method, Parallel) treats the stimulus as given. The ASSUMPTION family (Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, Flaw, Evaluate) attacks the gap between premises and conclusion.
Ad hominem: Attacking the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. 'You can't trust her climate claims — she drives an SUV.'
Circular reasoning (begging the question): Using the conclusion as a premise — assuming what you're trying to prove. 'This book is the best because no other book is as good.'
Equivocation: Using one word in two different senses within the same argument, making it seem valid when it isn't. 'Nothing is better than peace; a sandwich is better than nothing; so a sandwich is better than peace.'
Correlation–causation flaw: Concluding that A causes B just because A and B occur together. Could be coincidence, reverse causation, or a third common cause.
Sampling / unrepresentative sample flaw: Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased to represent the whole group.
Necessary vs. sufficient confusion: Treating a necessary condition as if it were sufficient (or vice versa). 'You need water to live, so anyone with water will live' — flawed.
Straw man: Distorting or exaggerating an opponent's position to make it easier to attack, then refuting the weaker version.
False dichotomy (either/or flaw): Presenting only two options as if they were the only possibilities when others exist.
Appeal to authority (improper): Treating a claim as true just because an authority — often one outside their field — said so.
Appeal to popularity (ad populum): Concluding something is true or good because many people believe or do it.
Part-to-whole / whole-to-part (composition & division): Composition: assuming what's true of the parts is true of the whole. Division: assuming what's true of the whole is true of each part.
Ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance): Arguing that a claim is true because it hasn't been proven false (or false because it hasn't been proven true).
Survivorship bias: Drawing conclusions only from the cases that 'survived' a selection process, ignoring those that dropped out.
Conflating absolute and relative / percentage vs. number: Confusing a change in percentage with a change in raw number, or vice versa. A higher rate can coexist with a lower total.
Conditional logic error (illegal reversal/negation): Concluding 'if not A then not B' (denying the antecedent) or 'if B then A' (affirming the consequent) from 'if A then B.' Both are invalid.
Overlooking an alternative explanation: Assuming one cause for an outcome while ignoring other plausible causes — the most common Weaken target.
Internal contradiction: The argument's own premises or claims conflict with each other.
Improper analogy / false comparison: Assuming two things alike in some ways are alike in the relevant way too, when the analogy breaks down.
Self-contradiction / self-undermining: An argument whose conclusion, if true, would undercut one of its own premises.
Hasty generalization: Jumping to a broad conclusion from too little evidence or one example.
Confusing correlation of timing (post hoc): Post hoc ergo propter hoc: assuming that because B followed A, A caused B.
Equating two different groups / term shift: Treating two distinct groups or terms as the same — a subtle scope shift between premise and conclusion.
Appeal to emotion: Substituting an emotional appeal (fear, pity) for relevant evidence.
Mistaking a sign for a cause: Treating an indicator or symptom of something as its cause.
Possibility vs. certainty confusion: Concluding something WILL happen from evidence that it merely COULD happen (or treating 'some' as 'all').
Necessary condition: A condition REQUIRED for a result; without it, the result cannot occur. In 'If A then B,' B is necessary for A.
Contrapositive: From 'If A then B,' the valid contrapositive is 'If not B then not A' — negate both terms and flip them. It is always true when the original is.
Denying the antecedent (invalid): Wrongly concluding 'If not A then not B' from 'If A then B.' Invalid — there may be other paths to B.
Affirming the consequent (invalid): Wrongly concluding 'If B then A' from 'If A then B.' Invalid — B can occur without A.
'If' introduces the…: Sufficient condition (the trigger). 'If it rains, the game is canceled': rain is sufficient.
'Only if' introduces the…: Necessary condition. 'You may enter only if you have a ticket': a ticket is necessary, not sufficient.
'Unless / without / except' translation: Translate as 'if not.' 'No entry unless you have a pass' = 'If you don't have a pass, no entry.' The term after 'unless' becomes the necessary condition.
'All / every' as conditional: 'All A are B' = 'If A then B.' Diagram A → B.
'None / no' as conditional: 'No A are B' = 'If A then not B.' Diagram A → not B (and B → not A).
'Some' statements: 'Some A are B' means at least one. It is reversible (some B are A) but does NOT combine into conditionals or guarantee 'most' or 'all.'
'Most' statements: 'Most A are B' means more than half. Not reversible. Two 'most' statements about the same group can be chained to yield a 'some' overlap.
Quantifier overlap rule: Most A are B + Most A are C → at least one A is both B and C (a 'some' conclusion). This is the most-tested quantifier inference.
Conjunctive sufficient condition (A and B → C): Both A and B together trigger C. Contrapositive: not C → not A OR not B.
Disjunctive necessary condition (A → B or C): A requires at least one of B or C. Contrapositive: not B and not C → not A.
Biconditional ('if and only if'): 'A if and only if B' means A → B AND B → A. Each is both necessary and sufficient for the other.
Negating 'all': The denial of 'All A are B' is 'At least one A is not B' (some A are not B) — NOT 'No A are B.'
Negating 'some': The denial of 'Some A are B' is 'No A are B.'
Inference chain: From A → B and B → C, you may conclude A → C (transitivity). Watch the arrow direction — chains run one way.
Sufficient assumption via the gap: If a conclusion introduces a new term, a sufficient assumption usually connects a premise term to that new term as a conditional bridge.
Mistaken reversal vs. mistaken negation: Reversal: B → A from A → B (affirming the consequent). Negation: not A → not B (denying the antecedent). Both are invalid; the contrapositive does BOTH at once and is valid.
Main Point question (RC): Asks for the central idea of the whole passage. The right answer covers the entire passage, not just one paragraph, and captures the author's stance.
Primary Purpose question: Asks WHY the author wrote the passage (to argue, to explain, to critique, to compare). Use a verb-first answer: 'to refute,' 'to describe.'
Author's Attitude / Tone question: Asks how the author feels about the subject. Look for evaluative words; expect measured tones (cautious approval, mild skepticism) over extreme ones.
Detail / Explicit question: Asks what the passage directly states. The answer is found in the text — locate the line and match it, watching for paraphrase.
Inference question (RC): Asks what the passage implies or supports. The answer must be provable from the text without adding outside assumptions.
Function / Role question: Asks why the author included a specific word, sentence, or paragraph. Ask: what job does it do in the structure of the argument?
Analogy / Application question: Asks you to apply a passage idea to a new situation, or find a parallel. Match the underlying relationship, not the surface topic.
Strengthen / Weaken question (RC): Like LR, but applied to the passage's central argument. The answer supports or undermines the author's main claim.
Comparative passages (Passage A & B): One RC set is two shorter passages on a shared topic. Track each author's view, then their points of agreement, disagreement, and relationship.
Comparative-passage question focus: Common questions: a point both passages address, something one would say about the other, or how their scopes/attitudes differ. Keep the two authors' positions separate in your map.
RC passage subjects: Four passages drawn from law, the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. No outside knowledge is needed — everything is in the text.
The 'main point' sentence: Before answering, state the passage's thesis in one sentence. Right answers echo it; wrong answers focus on a supporting detail or a viewpoint the author rejects.
Viewpoint tracking: Note every perspective (the author's, critics', scientists') and who holds it. Many wrong answers attribute a view to the wrong person.
Passage structure / organization question: Asks how the passage is built (e.g., 'presents a theory, then objections, then a defense'). Summarize each paragraph's job to answer.
Reading for structure vs. detail: First pass: capture purpose, opinion, and paragraph roles, not every fact. You can return for details when a question requires them.
Extreme-language trap (RC): Answers with 'always, never, all, none, must, impossible' are usually wrong unless the passage was equally absolute. Prefer measured wording.
Out-of-scope trap (RC): An answer that brings in information the passage never discussed is wrong, even if it sounds reasonable.
Half-right trap (RC): An answer that is correct in one part and wrong in another is fully wrong. Read every word of each choice.
Reversal trap (RC): An answer that states the opposite of what the passage says — often by swapping two viewpoints. Verify direction against the text.
Tone words to watch: Skeptical, dismissive, admiring, cautious, ambivalent, critical, neutral. The author's word choice (e.g., 'so-called,' 'remarkably') reveals attitude.
Comparative passage relationship: Ask whether Passage B supports, qualifies, rebuts, or is independent of Passage A. Their relationship is a frequent question.
Premise: A statement offered as evidence or support for a conclusion. On the LSAT, accept premises as true even if you disagree.
Conclusion: The main claim an argument is trying to establish; everything else supports it.
Assumption: An unstated premise the argument depends on — the bridge between the stated evidence and the conclusion.
Inference: A statement that must (or is strongly likely to) be true given other statements. The LSAT favors small, well-supported inferences.
Valid argument: An argument whose conclusion must be true if its premises are true. Validity is about form, not whether the premises are actually true.
Sound argument: A valid argument whose premises are actually true. Validity + true premises = soundness.
Counterexample: A specific case that shows a general claim or conclusion is false; a powerful way to weaken an argument.
Scope: The range of what an argument or passage covers. A scope shift — concluding about something narrower or broader than the evidence — is a frequent flaw.
Negation Test: For Necessary Assumption questions: negate each answer; the one whose negation breaks the argument is the necessary assumption.
Score scale: The LSAT is scored 120–180. Your raw score (number correct) converts to this scaled score, equated across forms. The median is about 153.
No wrong-answer penalty: The LSAT does not deduct for wrong answers, so never leave a question blank — always guess if you run out of time.
Section length & count: Each section is 35 minutes. The test has three scored sections — two Logical Reasoning and one Reading Comprehension — plus one unscored variable section.
Logic Games removed (Aug 2024): The LSAT removed the Analytical Reasoning ('Logic Games') section in August 2024. The current test has no Logic Games; it added a second scored Logical Reasoning section.
LSAT Writing: A separate, unscored writing sample (LSAT Argumentative Writing) taken online on your own — 50 minutes (15 min prewriting + 35 min essay). You must have it on file for a usable score, but it does not affect the 120–180 number.
Logical Reasoning weight: Because there are two scored LR sections, Logical Reasoning is about half of your scored questions — the highest-yield section to master.
Reading Comprehension weight: One scored RC section of four passages (~27 questions) makes up roughly a quarter to a third of scored questions.
Digital format: The LSAT is fully digital. It is moving to in-person testing at Prometric centers starting August 2026 (it was remote-proctored via LSAC LawHub through June 2026).
Guess strategically: If short on time, fill in every remaining bubble (a 'guessing letter') — there's no penalty, so a blank is a wasted chance.
Two-pass strategy: Within a section, answer the questions you find easy first, flag the hard ones, and return — don't let one question burn your clock.
Read the question stem first?: Many test-takers read the LR question stem before the stimulus so they read with purpose (e.g., hunting the assumption vs. the conclusion).
Prephrase: Before reading the answer choices, predict the answer in your own words. A strong prephrase makes the trap choices easier to eliminate.
Process of elimination: When unsure, cross off answers that are out of scope, too extreme, or unsupported. The last survivor is often correct even if you can't fully justify it.
Percentile vs. score: A scaled score maps to a percentile (e.g., ~160 ≈ 75th percentile, ~170 ≈ 96th). Schools compare applicants by both the score and its percentile.
Retaking the LSAT: LSAC limits how often you can take the LSAT (caps per year, per multi-year window, and a lifetime cap). Schools typically see all reportable scores.
Strengthen vs. Sufficient Assumption: Strengthen makes the conclusion MORE likely; a sufficient assumption makes it CERTAIN. If the stem says 'follows logically if assumed,' it's sufficient, not strengthen.
Weaken vs. Necessary Assumption: Weaken attacks the argument; a necessary assumption is something the argument needs. The negation of a necessary assumption is itself a strong weakener.
Causal arguments — how to strengthen: Affirm the cause-effect link: show the cause without the effect doesn't happen, rule out alternative causes, or show no reverse causation.
Causal arguments — how to weaken: Offer an alternative cause, show the effect occurs without the cause (or vice versa), point to reverse causation, or attack the data.
Survey/poll argument vulnerabilities: Weaken by attacking the sample (size, bias, self-selection), the wording of questions, or whether respondents told the truth.
'Which one, if true, most…' phrasing: Signals a Strengthen, Weaken, Resolve, or Evaluate question — you accept the new fact as true and judge its effect on the argument.
'The argument assumes which of the following?': An Assumption question — usually necessary. Find the unstated link the reasoning depends on.
'Vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that…': A Flaw question. The answer abstractly describes the reasoning error the author commits.
'Conforms to / illustrates which principle?': An Identify-the-Principle question — generalize the specific case into the broad rule it exemplifies.
'Which principle, if valid, justifies…?': An Apply-the-Principle / Justify question — pick the rule whose application licenses the conclusion or judgment.
'Plays which role in the argument?': A Role/Method question about a highlighted statement — classify it as a premise, main conclusion, subsidiary conclusion, or background.
'Most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy': A Paradox question. Pick the fact that lets both surprising statements be true together.
Argument vs. set of statements: Inference/Must-Be-True stimuli are often just statements with no conclusion. Assumption-family stimuli always contain a conclusion to attack.
Disagreement vs. agreement (Point at Issue): Some stems ask what two speakers AGREE on instead of disagree. Read the stem carefully; the answer must be a claim both addressed.
Auto-flaw answer choices to recognize: LSAT recycles flaw descriptions: 'takes a necessary condition to be sufficient,' 'mistakes correlation for causation,' 'relies on an unrepresentative sample,' 'attacks the source.' Learn the catalog.
Slippery slope: Asserting that one step will inevitably lead to a chain of bad outcomes without justifying each link.
Circular causation / chicken-and-egg: Treating two mutually reinforcing factors as if one clearly causes the other.
Inconsistent application of a standard: Applying a principle or criterion to one case but not to a relevantly similar case.
Confusing 'is' with 'ought': Deriving a value claim (what should be) purely from a factual claim (what is).
Equating failure to prove with proof of the opposite: Concluding a claim is false merely because the argument for it is weak (the bad-argument-implies-false-conclusion error).
Vagueness / undefined key term: Relying on a term so loosely defined that the conclusion can't actually follow.
Selective evidence (cherry-picking): Citing only data that supports the conclusion while ignoring contrary evidence.
Confusing a cause with one of several causes: Treating one contributing factor as the sole cause of an outcome.
Time/period shift: Drawing a conclusion about one time period from evidence about a different one.
Confusing relative quality with absolute quality: Concluding something is good because it's better than an alternative, when both could be poor.
Argument from lack of evidence about a specific case: Concluding a general rule applies (or not) to a case the evidence never actually addressed.
Mistaking economic/statistical terms: Confusing average vs. total, rate vs. number, or growth vs. level — a quantitative scope error.
Ignoring possibility of degree: Treating a continuous trait as all-or-nothing (e.g., 'either healthy or sick').
Diagram: 'A requires B': A → B. B is necessary for A. Contrapositive: not B → not A.
Diagram: 'No A unless B': A → B (B necessary). 'No driving unless licensed' = driving → licensed.
Diagram: 'A is essential/required for B': B → A. The essential thing is the NECESSARY condition, so it sits on the right of the arrow.
Diagram: 'Only A are B': B → A. 'Only members are admitted' = admitted → member.
Diagram: 'A only if B': A → B. B is necessary. 'I'll go only if you go' = I go → you go.
Diagram: 'Whenever A, B': A → B. 'Whenever' acts like 'if.'
Diagram: 'A always leads to B': A → B.
Diagram: 'B is the only way to get A': A → B. B is necessary for A.
Combining A → B and not B: Modus tollens: if A → B and B is false, then A is false. This is just using the contrapositive.
Combining A → B and A: Modus ponens: if A → B and A is true, then B is true.
'If and only if' contrapositive: A ↔ B has two contrapositives: not A → not B and not B → not A, since both directions hold.
'Either A or B' (inclusive): Diagram as not A → B (and not B → A): if you lack one, you must have the other. Usually inclusive unless 'but not both' is stated.
'Neither A nor B': not A AND not B. Equivalent to: A → contradiction and B → contradiction in that scenario.
Quantifier: 'all' + 'some': All A are B + Some A are C → some B are C. The shared 'A' lets a 'some' inference pass through.
Quantifier: chaining 'all' statements: All A are B + All B are C → All A are C (transitive). Mirrors A → B → C.
Why 'most' is not reversible: 'Most A are B' does not mean 'most B are A' — the groups can differ in size. Only 'some' reverses.
Formal logic vs. real-world plausibility: On Must-Be-True questions, ignore what's realistic; conclude only what the diagrammed statements force.
Sufficient assumption shortcut (Justify): Connect the loose premise term to the conclusion term with a conditional in the needed direction; that bridge is the sufficient assumption.
Four passage types by topic: Law, humanities (art, literature), social science (history, economics, psychology), and natural science (biology, physics). Difficulty comes from density, not prior knowledge.
Where the main point usually sits: Often in the first or last paragraph, or signaled by a contrast word ('but,' 'however,' 'yet'). The author's thesis frequently follows a described opposing view.
Pivot / transition words in RC: 'However, but, although, despite, nevertheless, on the other hand' mark shifts in argument — flag them; questions cluster there.
Continuation words in RC: 'Furthermore, moreover, in addition, similarly' add support to the current point — useful for tracking structure.
Author vs. cited viewpoint: Distinguish the author's own opinion from views the author merely reports or critiques. Wrong answers swap them.
RC inference scope: An RC inference must be tightly supported by the text — like LR Must-Be-True. 'Could be true' is not enough; it must be supported.
Specific-reference (line) questions: When a question cites a line, read a few sentences before and after for context, not just the cited line.
'The author would most likely agree' questions: Find the choice consistent with the author's stated views and tone. Eliminate anything the author rejected or never addressed.
'Primary purpose of the second paragraph': A function question — describe the paragraph's job in the passage's overall argument (e.g., 'to provide a counterexample to the theory in paragraph 1').
Comparative passages — common stems: 'Both passages discuss…,' 'The author of Passage B would likely respond to Passage A by…,' 'A point of disagreement is…' Keep a two-column mental map.
RC time budget: About 8–9 minutes per passage set (read + answer). Spend more time reading well so the questions go fast.
Avoid memorizing detail in RC: Don't try to retain every fact on the first read; know WHERE to find details and read for the argument's shape instead.
Answer must match passage strength: If the passage says a theory 'may explain' something, an answer claiming it 'proves' it is too strong and wrong.
Stimulus: The argument or set of statements at the top of a Logical Reasoning question, before the question stem and answers.
Question stem: The sentence stating what the question asks (e.g., 'Which one of the following, if true, most weakens…').
Argument core: The conclusion plus the premise(s) that directly support it — strip away background and counterpoints to find it.
Background information: Context in a stimulus that sets up the argument but isn't itself a premise or the conclusion.
Opposing viewpoint: A view the author introduces in order to argue against it; don't mistake it for the author's own conclusion.
Premise booster vs. conclusion: A premise supports; a conclusion is supported. Apply the 'Therefore Test': the claim that fits after 'therefore' is the conclusion.
Why LR is the priority: Two of the three scored sections are Logical Reasoning, so LR skills (finding the conclusion, the gap, conditional logic) carry the most weight.
Timing per LR question: About 1 minute 25 seconds per LR question on average (≈25 questions in 35 minutes). Bank time on easy ones for the hard ones.
Section order is fixed within a test, not across: You take all four sections in a set order on test day, but you can't choose which is the unscored one.
LSAT-Flex / digital history: The LSAT moved fully digital; it is delivered through LSAC's platform, remotely proctored or at a center. (Background only — not tested content.)
Score bands for law school: Roughly: ~153 median nationally (50th percentile); competitive schools often want ~160+ (≈75th percentile); top schools ~170+ (≈96th). Targets vary by school.
Reportable score window: LSAC reports scores from a multi-year window to schools; most schools consider the highest score, but all reportable scores are visible.
Equating / scaling: Raw scores are equated across test forms so a 160 means the same ability regardless of which form you took.
Argumentative Writing prompt: LSAT Writing gives a debatable issue with perspectives; you build and defend a position. It's unscored but required to be on file.
How to use a study guide + practice + flashcards: Learn each LR question type and the conditional-logic rules in the guide, drill them on the practice test, and keep the flaw catalog and quantifier rules fresh with flashcards.
Blind review: After timed practice, redo missed questions untimed before checking answers — it builds the reasoning skill faster than reading explanations alone.
Trap of the 'attractive wrong answer': The hardest LR questions pair a tempting wrong answer (right idea, slight scope/strength error) with the credited one. Read all five before committing.
Diagram: 'Without A, no B': B → A. A is necessary for B. ('Without water, no life' = life → water.)
Diagram: 'A is needed/required for B': B → A. The required thing is necessary, so it's on the right of the arrow.
Diagram: 'Not B unless A': B → A. 'Unless' marks A as necessary; rephrase 'if not A, then not B' → contrapositive is B → A.
Diagram: 'Each/any A is B': A → B. 'Each,' 'any,' 'every' behave like 'all.'
Diagram: 'A guarantees B': A → B. A is sufficient for B.
Diagram: 'B follows from A': A → B.
Contrapositive of 'A → (B and C)': not B OR not C → not A. Negating an 'and' gives an 'or.'
Contrapositive of 'A → (B or C)': (not B and not C) → not A. Negating an 'or' gives an 'and.'
'Most' + 'all' chain: Most A are B, and all B are C → most A are C. The 'all' link carries the 'most' through.
Valid vs. invalid inference quick test: Valid: the statement itself and its contrapositive. Invalid: its reverse (B→A) and its negation (¬A→¬B).
Stem: 'Which most accurately expresses the conclusion?': A Main Point question — identify the main conclusion in your own words.
Stem: 'The reasoning is questionable because it…': A Flaw question.
Stem: 'Each of the following weakens EXCEPT': Four answers weaken; the credited answer either strengthens or has no effect. Watch the EXCEPT.
Stem: 'Which, if assumed, allows the conclusion to be properly drawn?': A Sufficient Assumption (Justify) question.
Stem: 'Which is required by the argument?': A Necessary Assumption question.
Stem: 'Most similar in its reasoning to…': A Parallel Reasoning question — match the structure.
Stem: 'The two are committed to disagreeing about…': A Point at Issue (disagreement) question.
Stem: 'Which would be most useful to determine?': An Evaluate question — find the question whose answers swing the argument.
'EXCEPT' questions general rule: Flip your task: in a Strengthen-EXCEPT, four answers strengthen and you pick the odd one out (weakens or irrelevant).
Mistaking correlation for a specific direction of causation: Even if A causes B is plausible, B might cause A (reverse causation) — a common weakener and flaw.
Appeal to moderation (false compromise): Assuming the middle position between two views must be correct.
Confusing 'sufficient evidence' with 'proof': Treating supportive evidence as if it conclusively proved the conclusion.
Overgeneralizing from an exceptional case: Drawing a broad rule from an atypical or extreme example.
Ignoring a key difference in an analogy: Assuming two cases are alike in the relevant respect when they differ in a way that matters.
Confusing 'all' with 'only': Treating 'all A are B' as if it also meant 'all B are A.'
Tone word: 'so-called': Signals skepticism or disapproval — the author doubts the label.
Tone word: 'remarkably / strikingly': Signals the author finds something notable or impressive — mild admiration or emphasis.
Detecting the author's view in RC: Look for first-person or evaluative language and for the claim the rest of the passage supports — distinct from views merely reported.
RC 'analogous situation' questions: Strip the passage relationship to its abstract form, then find the answer with the same relationship in a different context.
Paragraph-purpose questions: Ask what job a paragraph does for the whole passage (introduce a theory, raise an objection, give evidence, qualify a claim).
First-paragraph function: Often introduces the topic and the central problem or competing views the passage will address.
Last-paragraph function: Often states or restates the author's position, resolves the tension, or notes implications.
Pacing: Logical Reasoning: ~35 minutes for ~25 questions ≈ 1 minute 24 seconds each. Don't sink 4 minutes into one question.
Pacing: Reading Comprehension: ~35 minutes for 4 passage sets ≈ 8–9 minutes each, including reading.
Why guess every blank: No penalty for wrong answers — a blank is a wasted chance. Pick a 'guess letter' for anything unanswered.
Reportable score period: LSAC reports your scores from a multi-year window to schools; most schools focus on the highest, but all reportable scores are visible.
Equated scores: Raw scores are equated across forms so a 165 reflects the same ability regardless of which test you took.

To find us again, just search “Career Employer LSAT”

By Career EmployerUpdated Sep 12, 2026

200+ free LSAT flashcards — 4 ways to study

LSAT Flashcard of the DayNew daily

The classic card. Do you know this one?

Click Study Flashcards above to open the flashcard hub — hundreds of LSAT cards you can flip, match, type, or quiz yourself on. Every card targets the skills the current test measures — Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension — with no Logic Games.^[1] Pair them with our free practice test and study guide.

LSAT Flashcard Study Modes

Flip mode lets you turn cards one at a time for quiet review, Match times you pairing terms with definitions, Type asks you to read a definition and spell the term back — Contrapositive, for instance — and Quiz builds multiple-choice questions from the same 225 cards. Rotate through all four so recognition turns into recall you can use under timed conditions.

Free LSAT flashcards from Career Employer — active recall for Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension

Why Flashcards Work for the LSAT

Conditional & Formal Logic is the largest domain at 49 cards, and it drills the mechanics behind every sufficient-necessary chain on the test. You get Contrapositive, Necessary condition, and the quantifier work in Negating ’some’ and ’Most’ statements, plus formal translation patterns like ’Neither A nor B’ and building an Inference chain from linked statements.

Logic Terms & Strategy carries 46 cards covering the vocabulary you need before any question type makes sense. Cards such as Stimulus, Premise, and Conclusion fix the parts of an argument, while Scope, Assumption, and Prephrase name the habits that speed you up. Score scale sits here too, so the test’s structure is part of the same review.

Logical Reasoning: Question Types holds 45 cards that teach you to identify a prompt by its stem. Flaw question, Weaken question, and Strengthen question anchor the common families, and the deck pushes into harder stems with Parallel Reasoning question, Method of Reasoning question, and Role of a Statement question.

Logical Reasoning: Flaws & Fallacies adds 44 cards naming the specific reasoning errors test writers reuse. Straw man, Equivocation, and Hasty generalization show up alongside subtler entries like Survivorship bias, Time/period shift, and Appeal to emotion, so you can label a gap instead of merely sensing one.

Reading Comprehension rounds out the deck with 41 cards on passage strategy and trap patterns. Viewpoint tracking and RC inference scope shape how you read, while Half-right trap (RC), Reversal trap (RC), and Tone word: ’so-called’ train you to catch the small wording moves that decide answer choices.

The LSAT runs on a fixed toolkit: a set of recurring question types, a catalog of reasoning flaws, and the rules of conditional logic.^[2] Those are exactly the kind of crisp, rule-based content flashcards lock in fastest. Used alongside our practice test and study guide, they turn review time into measurable progress.

LSAT Flashcards by Topic

The cards are organized into five decks. Drill the Logical Reasoning decks first — two of the three scored sections are LR, so it’s about half your score:^[2]

LSAT flashcards by deck
Deck	What it covers
Logical Reasoning: Question Types	Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, Flaw, Inference, Parallel, Principle, Paradox, and more
Logical Reasoning: Flaws & Fallacies	Correlation–causation, straw man, circular reasoning, false dichotomy, sampling, and the rest
Conditional & Formal Logic	Sufficient vs. necessary, the contrapositive, quantifiers, and valid inferences
Reading Comprehension	Active reading, passage structure, comparative reading, and RC question types
Logic Terms & Strategy	Premise, conclusion, inference, scoring, timing, and exam-day tactics

How to Get the Most Out of These Flashcards

Start with the biggest pile. Conditional & Formal Logic has 49 cards and underpins the other domains, so run it in Flip mode until the arrow logic feels automatic.
Type-drill the precise ones. Contrapositive and Necessary condition reward exact wording, and typing them forces the recall you need when a stimulus hides the conditional inside ordinary sentences.
Use Match for the fallacy names. The 44 Logical Reasoning: Flaws & Fallacies cards, including Straw man and Slippery slope, are pure label-to-description pairs, which is exactly what timed matching sharpens.
Switch when stems stop stumping you. Once Quiz mode returns clean runs on Logical Reasoning: Question Types, move to the practice test and apply the labels to full sections under time.
Keep the cadence short and repeated. Work one domain per sitting across the 225 cards, then re-Flip missed cards the next day and check the study guide for anything still fuzzy.

LSAT Flashcards FAQ

Hundreds of free LSAT flashcards, organized across the skills the current test measures — Logical Reasoning question types, logical flaws and fallacies, conditional and formal logic, Reading Comprehension strategy, and key logic terms. They're free with no account required.

References

1.Law School Admission Council (LSAC). “What's in the LSAT (LawHub).” lawhub.org. ↑
2.Law School Admission Council (LSAC). “LSAT Test Format: Logical Reasoning.” lsac.org. ↑
3.Law School Admission Council (LSAC). “Reading Comprehension Question Types.” lsac.org. ↑

Career Employer

Career Employer is the ultimate resource to help you get started working the job of your dreams. We cover topics from general career information, career searching, exam preparation with free study materials, career interviewing, and becoming successful in your career of choice.

All Posts

Career Employer’s Editorial Process

Here at Career Employer, we focus a lot on providing factually accurate information that is always up to date. We strive to provide correct information using strict editorial processes, article editing, and fact-checking for all of the information found on our website. We only utilize trustworthy and relevant resources. To find out more, make sure to read our full editorial process page here.