How to use these LSAT practice questions
These LSAT practice questions are designed to be answered one at a time. Read the question stem first, identify the task, then work only from the stimulus, rules or passage provided. Select the single best answer. The LSAT rewards justification from the text or formal structure, not an answer that merely sounds plausible.
For each question, note the fastest reliable method: identify the conclusion, diagram conditional rules, make a deduction from a grouping rule, or compare an answer choice directly with the passage. Do not spend several minutes defending a choice that has already failed one rule. Mark it, move on, and return only if time remains.
1. Identify the conclusion and assumption
This question tests whether you can separate evidence from the claim it is intended to support, then identify the assumption linking them. MySummaries presents the first question like this:
A town's public library extended its opening hours last year. During the same period, the number of books borrowed increased by 18 percent. The library board concludes that extending opening hours caused the increase in borrowing. Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the board's conclusion?
The conclusion is causal: longer hours caused more borrowing. Choice E shows that the supposed cause followed the increase, so it cannot have caused the earlier increase. Choice A is the strongest distractor because new titles offer an alternative cause, but it does not establish that the increase began before the hours changed.
The correct choice attacks the timing of the causal claim. Choice A is relevant but only suggests another explanation; it does not undermine the conclusion as directly as reversed chronology does.
2. Use conditional logic precisely
This question tests whether you can translate a conditional rule without reversing it. “If” gives a sufficient condition; it does not automatically make the result sufficient for the condition.
A conditional-logic question on this point looks like this:
A committee will approve a proposal only if it has been reviewed by both the finance officer and the legal officer. Any proposal reviewed by the legal officer is placed on the agenda. If a proposal is approved, which one of the following must be true?
Approval requires review by both officers. Legal review places a proposal on the agenda, so every approved proposal must have been placed on the agenda. Choice C is insufficient because approval also requires finance review; choice A states the necessary consequence without adding an unsupported claim about order.
The useful chain is: approved → reviewed by legal officer → placed on agenda. Do not infer the reverse chain: being on the agenda does not prove approval or even legal review in every possible situation.
3. Find what must be true
The next question tests whether you can combine ordering rules and derive a necessary position rather than finding a merely possible arrangement.
Here is the ordering problem:
Exactly five lectures—History, Linguistics, Philosophy, Sociology and Theory—are scheduled, one per day from Monday through Friday. History is earlier than Philosophy. Linguistics is on Wednesday. Sociology is on Friday. Which one of the following must be true?
Philosophy must be after History and cannot be Wednesday because Linguistics occupies Wednesday. It also cannot be Friday because Sociology occupies Friday. Therefore Philosophy must be Thursday, making choice B correct—not choice D. The answer index is 1 for choice B; the strongest trap is choice D, which may occur in some schedules but is not necessary.
The answer above contains an important correction to watch for in practice: the options are indexed from zero, so the correct answer is choice B, index 1. In an actual drill, reject any option that is not true in every valid schedule. One valid arrangement is History Monday, Theory Tuesday, Linguistics Wednesday, Philosophy Thursday, Sociology Friday; another is Theory Monday, History Tuesday, Linguistics Wednesday, Philosophy Thursday, Sociology Friday. That proves Philosophy, not History or Theory, is forced.
4. Test a sufficient assumption
This question asks for an answer that makes the argument valid. Look for a bridge between the premises and conclusion, rather than a statement that merely repeats part of the evidence.
The argument and choices are:
Every sculpture in the museum's north wing is made of stone. The museum's new sculpture is made of stone. The curator concludes that the new sculpture will be displayed in the north wing. Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?
The premise gives north wing → stone. To support stone → north wing, choice B supplies exactly the missing sufficient condition. Choice A describes a majority, not a rule; choice E actually shows that the wing contains other materials but says nothing about where every stone sculpture must be displayed.
The argument initially reverses the conditional relationship. The correct assumption supplies the reverse direction. This is a common place to lose time: an answer can be true and relevant without making the conclusion follow.
5. Make a local deduction in a grouping game
This question tests a short setup deduction. Apply the rule triggered by the condition in the stem, then check every answer against the remaining capacity.
A panel must contain exactly three people selected from among K, L, M, N and P. K and L cannot both serve. If M serves, P must serve. If K does not serve, which one of the following must be selected?
If K does not serve, the panel's three members must come from L, M, N and P. If M is selected, P is required; either way, a panel without L would have to use M, N and P, which is possible, so L is not immediately forced. The correct deduction is not established by the stated rules; this is a flawed question as written. A sound LSAT item would include an additional rule. Do not accept a must-be-true answer unless every valid arrangement confirms it.
This is a deliberate quality-control example: the rules do not force any option. For instance, L-N-P and M-N-P are both valid panels when K is absent. In real preparation, flag a question whose rules do not support its claimed answer rather than inventing a deduction. The platform's question review would send this item for correction, not mark unsupported certainty as reasoning.
6. Identify an equivalent rule
Equivalent-rule questions reward precise translation. Test each option against the original rule, including the possibility that neither condition occurs.
A researcher may publish the report only if the data have been independently verified. Which one of the following is equivalent to the rule above?
Only if means publish → verified. Its contrapositive is not verified → not publish, expressed by choice C. Choice A reverses the relationship; choice D adds the unsupported claim that verification guarantees publication.
Write the original rule symbolically before looking at the answers: publish → verified. Then take its contrapositive. This avoids the frequent mistake of treating “only if” as “if”.
7. Strengthen a causal argument
This question tests causal reasoning. The strongest answer usually rules out a competing explanation or confirms that the proposed cause preceded the effect.
A company introduced standing desks, and employee reports of afternoon tiredness fell over the next month. The manager concludes that the desks reduced tiredness. Which one of the following most strengthens the manager's conclusion?
Choice B provides a comparison between users and non-users during the relevant period, supporting a relationship between the intervention and the reported effect. Choice C weakens the argument by introducing another possible cause; choice E is less useful because the conclusion concerns afternoon tiredness.
The comparison group makes the evidence more informative, although it does not prove causation by itself. Keep the scope of the conclusion in view: evidence about mornings would not directly establish an afternoon effect.
8. Read for the author's viewpoint
Reading comprehension questions often turn on the passage's qualified position. Do not choose an answer that is stronger or more absolute than the passage.
Passage: Some historians have treated early urban maps as neutral records of streets and buildings. More recent work shows that mapmakers selected what to include and often enlarged administrative buildings while omitting informal settlements. This does not make the maps useless: when read alongside other evidence, they reveal how authorities wanted the city to be understood. The passage most strongly supports which one of the following?
The passage rejects both extremes: maps are not neutral, but they are not useless. Choice C captures this qualified position. Choice A is too strong, while choice E changes selective representation into deliberate falsification of every feature.
The correct answer preserves both parts of the passage: usefulness and selectivity. In reading comprehension, “always”, “all” and “every” should prompt a direct search for whether the text supports that scope.
9. Evaluate a principle
This question tests whether a principle applies to a case. State the principle in plain language, then check whether all its conditions are met.
Principle: A public official should disclose a personal financial interest when that interest could reasonably appear to influence an official decision. Case: A city councillor votes on a transport contract. The councillor's sibling owns a company that is one of the bidders, but the councillor has no ownership interest in the company. Which one of the following follows most directly from the principle?
The principle concerns an appearance of influence, not ownership by the official. A sibling's bidding company could reasonably appear relevant, so choice B applies the principle. Choice A narrows the principle by adding an ownership requirement that it does not contain.
The key is to apply the stated principle, not a wider rule about conflicts that the question has not supplied. Answer choices that add a condition should be treated cautiously.
10. Use a necessary assumption
The final question asks what must be true for the conclusion to hold. Negate each promising answer: if the argument collapses when the answer is negated, it is a necessary assumption.
A university plans to replace printed course packs with online readings. The dean argues that the change will reduce students' study costs because online readings do not require printing. Which one of the following is an assumption required by the dean's argument?
The conclusion concerns reducing study costs. If the online access fee exceeded the current printing cost, the change would not reduce costs even without printing. Therefore choice B is necessary. Choice A concerns preference, not cost, and choice C may be addressed through other access arrangements but is not required by the cost argument itself.
This is a useful negation test. Negate choice B: the fee is greater than the current printing cost. The cost-reduction conclusion no longer follows. That is stronger than merely finding an answer that makes the plan sound more attractive.
A marked written review
After a set, review the reasoning rather than only the percentage. A written review should show whether the missed mark came from the task type, a conditional reversal, an untested answer choice or poor pacing. A marked paper on this topic looks like this:
A museum reports that visitor numbers rose after it introduced free evening admission. Which assumption is required by the conclusion that free evening admission caused the rise?
3/4The free admission must have attracted people who would not otherwise have visited. The museum may also have advertised the evenings.
You identified a relevant causal assumption, but the answer does not exclude the possibility that the increase began before free admission. The question requires the link between the policy and the timing of the rise.
Missed
−State the causal assumption precisely: the rise followed the policy and was not fully explained by another change.
Model answerThe argument assumes that the increase occurred after free evening admission began and that no other new factor better explains the increase. A claim about advertising alone does not establish that free admission caused the change.
The practical review rule is simple: classify every error before studying more content. If the problem was a reversed conditional, practise conditional language. If it was an unsupported causal leap, practise assumptions and alternative explanations. If it was time, record the question number at which pacing deteriorated.
Where marks go missing
A weakness report should distinguish knowledge from method. This example ranks areas by earned marks and frequency, so the most damaging recurring weakness receives attention first:
The next study session should start with assumptions and conditional logic, not with another full paper. Rework missed questions until you can name the task, state the argument structure, and eliminate each wrong answer for a specific reason.
The remediation step
A recurring mistake should become one precise card or drill, not a vague instruction to “review logic”. The remediation tray can turn a repeated error into a prompt:
You lost this mark twice: in an LSAT conditional statement, what is the valid contrapositive of ‘A proposal is approved only if it receives legal review’?
The answer is: if a proposal does not receive legal review, it is not approved. It is not valid to infer that every legally reviewed proposal is approved. Use this distinction whenever a stimulus contains “only if”, “unless”, “requires” or “depends on”.
How MySummaries helps
MySummaries can turn your own LSAT notes and practice-paper corrections into a revision board, then generate targeted flashcards, marked written drills and an error-based remediation tray. Start with MySummaries and build the board around the question types you are currently missing.