Your FREE LSAT Flashcards 2026 – 200+ Cards

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Asks HOW the argument proceeds (e.g., 'argues by analogy,' 'cites a counterexample'). Describe the structure of the reasoning, not its content.

Asks which answer has the same logical structure as the stimulus. Match the conclusion type, the validity, and the form — ignore the topic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A portion is highlighted; identify its function (premise, conclusion, intermediate conclusion, opposing view). Ask: what work does this sentence do in the argument?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 attacks the argument; a necessary assumption is something the argument needs. The negation of a necessary assumption is itself a strong weakener.

Affirm the cause-effect link: show the cause without the effect doesn't happen, rule out alternative causes, or show no reverse causation.

Offer an alternative cause, show the effect occurs without the cause (or vice versa), point to reverse causation, or attack the data.

Weaken by attacking the sample (size, bias, self-selection), the wording of questions, or whether respondents told the truth.

Signals a Strengthen, Weaken, Resolve, or Evaluate question — you accept the new fact as true and judge its effect on the argument.

An Assumption question — usually necessary. Find the unstated link the reasoning depends on.

A Flaw question. The answer abstractly describes the reasoning error the author commits.

An Identify-the-Principle question — generalize the specific case into the broad rule it exemplifies.

An Apply-the-Principle / Justify question — pick the rule whose application licenses the conclusion or judgment.

A Role/Method question about a highlighted statement — classify it as a premise, main conclusion, subsidiary conclusion, or background.

A Paradox question. Pick the fact that lets both surprising statements be true together.

Inference/Must-Be-True stimuli are often just statements with no conclusion. Assumption-family stimuli always contain a conclusion to attack.

Some stems ask what two speakers AGREE on instead of disagree. Read the stem carefully; the answer must be a claim both addressed.

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.

A Main Point question — identify the main conclusion in your own words.

A Flaw question.

Four answers weaken; the credited answer either strengthens or has no effect. Watch the EXCEPT.

A Sufficient Assumption (Justify) question.

A Necessary Assumption question.

A Parallel Reasoning question — match the structure.

A Point at Issue (disagreement) question.

An Evaluate question — find the question whose answers swing the argument.

Flip your task: in a Strengthen-EXCEPT, four answers strengthen and you pick the odd one out (weakens or irrelevant).

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

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.'

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Substituting an emotional appeal (fear, pity) for relevant evidence.

Treating an indicator or symptom of something as its cause.

Concluding something WILL happen from evidence that it merely COULD happen (or treating 'some' as 'all').

Asserting that one step will inevitably lead to a chain of bad outcomes without justifying each link.

Treating two mutually reinforcing factors as if one clearly causes the other.

Applying a principle or criterion to one case but not to a relevantly similar case.

Deriving a value claim (what should be) purely from a factual claim (what is).

Concluding a claim is false merely because the argument for it is weak (the bad-argument-implies-false-conclusion error).

Relying on a term so loosely defined that the conclusion can't actually follow.

Citing only data that supports the conclusion while ignoring contrary evidence.

Treating one contributing factor as the sole cause of an outcome.

Drawing a conclusion about one time period from evidence about a different one.

Concluding something is good because it's better than an alternative, when both could be poor.

Concluding a general rule applies (or not) to a case the evidence never actually addressed.

Confusing average vs. total, rate vs. number, or growth vs. level — a quantitative scope error.

Treating a continuous trait as all-or-nothing (e.g., 'either healthy or sick').

Even if A causes B is plausible, B might cause A (reverse causation) — a common weakener and flaw.

Assuming the middle position between two views must be correct.

Treating supportive evidence as if it conclusively proved the conclusion.

Drawing a broad rule from an atypical or extreme example.

Assuming two cases are alike in the relevant respect when they differ in a way that matters.

Treating 'all A are B' as if it also meant 'all B are A.'

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.

A condition REQUIRED for a result; without it, the result cannot occur. In 'If A then B,' B is necessary for A.

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.

Wrongly concluding 'If not A then not B' from 'If A then B.' Invalid — there may be other paths to B.

Wrongly concluding 'If B then A' from 'If A then B.' Invalid — B can occur without A.

Sufficient condition (the trigger). 'If it rains, the game is canceled': rain is sufficient.

Necessary condition. 'You may enter only if you have a ticket': a ticket is necessary, not sufficient.

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 A are B' = 'If A then B.' Diagram A → B.

'No A are B' = 'If A then not B.' Diagram A → not B (and B → not A).

'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 A are B' means more than half. Not reversible. Two 'most' statements about the same group can be chained to yield a 'some' overlap.

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.

Both A and B together trigger C. Contrapositive: not C → not A OR not B.

A requires at least one of B or C. Contrapositive: not B and not C → not A.

'A if and only if B' means A → B AND B → A. Each is both necessary and sufficient for the other.

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.'

The denial of 'Some A are B' is 'No A are B.'

From A → B and B → C, you may conclude A → C (transitivity). Watch the arrow direction — chains run one way.

If a conclusion introduces a new term, a sufficient assumption usually connects a premise term to that new term as a conditional bridge.

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.

A → B. B is necessary for A. Contrapositive: not B → not A.

A → B (B necessary). 'No driving unless licensed' = driving → licensed.

B → A. The essential thing is the NECESSARY condition, so it sits on the right of the arrow.

B → A. 'Only members are admitted' = admitted → member.

A → B. B is necessary. 'I'll go only if you go' = I go → you go.

A → B. 'Whenever' acts like 'if.'

A → B.

A → B. B is necessary for A.

Modus tollens: if A → B and B is false, then A is false. This is just using the contrapositive.

Modus ponens: if A → B and A is true, then B is true.

A ↔ B has two contrapositives: not A → not B and not B → not A, since both directions hold.

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.

not A AND not B. Equivalent to: A → contradiction and B → contradiction in that scenario.

All A are B + Some A are C → some B are C. The shared 'A' lets a 'some' inference pass through.

All A are B + All B are C → All A are C (transitive). Mirrors A → B → C.

'Most A are B' does not mean 'most B are A' — the groups can differ in size. Only 'some' reverses.

On Must-Be-True questions, ignore what's realistic; conclude only what the diagrammed statements force.

Connect the loose premise term to the conclusion term with a conditional in the needed direction; that bridge is the sufficient assumption.

B → A. A is necessary for B. ('Without water, no life' = life → water.)

B → A. The required thing is necessary, so it's on the right of the arrow.

B → A. 'Unless' marks A as necessary; rephrase 'if not A, then not B' → contrapositive is B → A.

A → B. 'Each,' 'any,' 'every' behave like 'all.'

A → B. A is sufficient for B.

A → B.

not B OR not C → not A. Negating an 'and' gives an 'or.'

(not B and not C) → not A. Negating an 'or' gives an 'and.'

Most A are B, and all B are C → most A are C. The 'all' link carries the 'most' through.

Valid: the statement itself and its contrapositive. Invalid: its reverse (B→A) and its negation (¬A→¬B).

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.

Asks WHY the author wrote the passage (to argue, to explain, to critique, to compare). Use a verb-first answer: 'to refute,' 'to describe.'

Asks how the author feels about the subject. Look for evaluative words; expect measured tones (cautious approval, mild skepticism) over extreme ones.

Asks what the passage directly states. The answer is found in the text — locate the line and match it, watching for paraphrase.

Asks what the passage implies or supports. The answer must be provable from the text without adding outside assumptions.

Asks why the author included a specific word, sentence, or paragraph. Ask: what job does it do in the structure of the argument?

Asks you to apply a passage idea to a new situation, or find a parallel. Match the underlying relationship, not the surface topic.

Like LR, but applied to the passage's central argument. The answer supports or undermines the author's main claim.

One RC set is two shorter passages on a shared topic. Track each author's view, then their points of agreement, disagreement, and relationship.

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.

Four passages drawn from law, the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. No outside knowledge is needed — everything is in the text.

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.

Note every perspective (the author's, critics', scientists') and who holds it. Many wrong answers attribute a view to the wrong person.

Asks how the passage is built (e.g., 'presents a theory, then objections, then a defense'). Summarize each paragraph's job to answer.

First pass: capture purpose, opinion, and paragraph roles, not every fact. You can return for details when a question requires them.

Answers with 'always, never, all, none, must, impossible' are usually wrong unless the passage was equally absolute. Prefer measured wording.

An answer that brings in information the passage never discussed is wrong, even if it sounds reasonable.

An answer that is correct in one part and wrong in another is fully wrong. Read every word of each choice.

An answer that states the opposite of what the passage says — often by swapping two viewpoints. Verify direction against the text.

Skeptical, dismissive, admiring, cautious, ambivalent, critical, neutral. The author's word choice (e.g., 'so-called,' 'remarkably') reveals attitude.

Ask whether Passage B supports, qualifies, rebuts, or is independent of Passage A. Their relationship is a frequent question.

Law, humanities (art, literature), social science (history, economics, psychology), and natural science (biology, physics). Difficulty comes from density, not prior knowledge.

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.

'However, but, although, despite, nevertheless, on the other hand' mark shifts in argument — flag them; questions cluster there.

'Furthermore, moreover, in addition, similarly' add support to the current point — useful for tracking structure.

Distinguish the author's own opinion from views the author merely reports or critiques. Wrong answers swap them.

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.

When a question cites a line, read a few sentences before and after for context, not just the cited line.

Find the choice consistent with the author's stated views and tone. Eliminate anything the author rejected or never addressed.

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').

'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.

About 8–9 minutes per passage set (read + answer). Spend more time reading well so the questions go fast.

Don't try to retain every fact on the first read; know WHERE to find details and read for the argument's shape instead.

If the passage says a theory 'may explain' something, an answer claiming it 'proves' it is too strong and wrong.

Signals skepticism or disapproval — the author doubts the label.

Signals the author finds something notable or impressive — mild admiration or emphasis.

Look for first-person or evaluative language and for the claim the rest of the passage supports — distinct from views merely reported.

Strip the passage relationship to its abstract form, then find the answer with the same relationship in a different context.

Ask what job a paragraph does for the whole passage (introduce a theory, raise an objection, give evidence, qualify a claim).

Often introduces the topic and the central problem or competing views the passage will address.

Often states or restates the author's position, resolves the tension, or notes implications.

A statement offered as evidence or support for a conclusion. On the LSAT, accept premises as true even if you disagree.

The main claim an argument is trying to establish; everything else supports it.

An unstated premise the argument depends on — the bridge between the stated evidence and the conclusion.

A statement that must (or is strongly likely to) be true given other statements. The LSAT favors small, well-supported inferences.

An argument whose conclusion must be true if its premises are true. Validity is about form, not whether the premises are actually true.

A valid argument whose premises are actually true. Validity + true premises = soundness.

A specific case that shows a general claim or conclusion is false; a powerful way to weaken an argument.

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.

For Necessary Assumption questions: negate each answer; the one whose negation breaks the argument is the necessary assumption.

The LSAT is scored 120–180. Your raw score (number correct) converts to this scaled score, equated across forms. The median is about 153.

The LSAT does not deduct for wrong answers, so never leave a question blank — always guess if you run out of time.

Each section is 35 minutes. The test has three scored sections — two Logical Reasoning and one Reading Comprehension — plus one unscored variable section.

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.

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.

Because there are two scored LR sections, Logical Reasoning is about half of your scored questions — the highest-yield section to master.

One scored RC section of four passages (~27 questions) makes up roughly a quarter to a third of scored questions.

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).

If short on time, fill in every remaining bubble (a 'guessing letter') — there's no penalty, so a blank is a wasted chance.

Within a section, answer the questions you find easy first, flag the hard ones, and return — don't let one question burn your clock.

Many test-takers read the LR question stem before the stimulus so they read with purpose (e.g., hunting the assumption vs. the conclusion).

Before reading the answer choices, predict the answer in your own words. A strong prephrase makes the trap choices easier to eliminate.

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.

A scaled score maps to a percentile (e.g., ~160 ≈ 75th percentile, ~170 ≈ 96th). Schools compare applicants by both the score and its percentile.

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.

The argument or set of statements at the top of a Logical Reasoning question, before the question stem and answers.

The sentence stating what the question asks (e.g., 'Which one of the following, if true, most weakens…').

The conclusion plus the premise(s) that directly support it — strip away background and counterpoints to find it.

Context in a stimulus that sets up the argument but isn't itself a premise or the conclusion.

A view the author introduces in order to argue against it; don't mistake it for the author's own conclusion.

A premise supports; a conclusion is supported. Apply the 'Therefore Test': the claim that fits after 'therefore' is the conclusion.

Two of the three scored sections are Logical Reasoning, so LR skills (finding the conclusion, the gap, conditional logic) carry the most weight.

About 1 minute 25 seconds per LR question on average (≈25 questions in 35 minutes). Bank time on easy ones for the hard ones.

You take all four sections in a set order on test day, but you can't choose which is the unscored one.

The LSAT moved fully digital; it is delivered through LSAC's platform, remotely proctored or at a center. (Background only — not tested content.)

Roughly: ~153 median nationally (50th percentile); competitive schools often want ~160+ (≈75th percentile); top schools ~170+ (≈96th). Targets vary by school.

LSAC reports scores from a multi-year window to schools; most schools consider the highest score, but all reportable scores are visible.

Raw scores are equated across test forms so a 160 means the same ability regardless of which form you took.

LSAT Writing gives a debatable issue with perspectives; you build and defend a position. It's unscored but required to be on file.

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.

After timed practice, redo missed questions untimed before checking answers — it builds the reasoning skill faster than reading explanations alone.

The hardest LR questions pair a tempting wrong answer (right idea, slight scope/strength error) with the credited one. Read all five before committing.

~35 minutes for ~25 questions ≈ 1 minute 24 seconds each. Don't sink 4 minutes into one question.

~35 minutes for 4 passage sets ≈ 8–9 minutes each, including reading.

No penalty for wrong answers — a blank is a wasted chance. Pick a 'guess letter' for anything unanswered.

LSAC reports your scores from a multi-year window to schools; most schools focus on the highest, but all reportable scores are visible.

Raw scores are equated across forms so a 165 reflects the same ability regardless of which test you took.