Free LSAT Logical Reasoning Exam Flashcards

Identify the conclusion and the support. Once you know what the author is trying to prove and why, the question type tells you what to do with that argument.

A statement offered as support for another claim. Premises are treated as true on the LSAT, even if they sound debatable in real life.

The primary claim the argument is trying to establish. It is supported by other statements and does not mainly serve to support a later claim.

A claim that is supported by at least one premise and also supports the main conclusion. It is both a conclusion and a premise within the argument.

Context that helps frame the argument but is not doing the main inferential work. Do not mistake scene-setting facts for the author's proof.

A point the author acknowledges before arguing a different conclusion. A concession often signals that the author is responding to an opposing view.

The claim the rest of the argument is meant to support. Use the because/therefore test: premises fit after because; conclusions fit after therefore.

Ask how the named statement functions: premise, main conclusion, intermediate conclusion, background, concession, objection, or example.

Describe the argument's move, not whether it is persuasive. Common methods include applying a general rule, drawing an analogy, eliminating alternatives, or citing a counterexample.

An unstated idea the argument depends on. Assumptions connect the premises to the conclusion or rule out a problem the author overlooked.

Find something the argument must rely on. If the answer is false, the argument is seriously damaged or cannot work as stated.

For a Necessary Assumption answer, negate the choice and ask whether the argument falls apart. If the negation wrecks the reasoning, the original choice was required.

Find a statement that guarantees the conclusion when combined with the premises. The correct answer usually closes the exact logical gap.

Necessary assumptions are required but may not prove the conclusion. Sufficient assumptions prove the conclusion but may be stronger than what the argument strictly needs.

An assumption that rules out a threat to the argument. It often says that some alternative cause, exception, or interfering factor is not present.

An assumption that links a premise term to a conclusion term. Watch for new language in the conclusion that was not clearly supported in the premises.

Choose the answer that makes the conclusion more likely to follow from the premises. It need not prove the conclusion; it only has to help.

Choose the answer that most undermines the support for the conclusion. The best weakener attacks the argument's link, not merely the topic.

Strong language can be correct if it targets the gap. Do not eliminate an answer just because it says all, always, or never; test its effect on the argument.

An argument claiming that one thing produces another. To weaken, show an alternate cause, reverse causation, coincidence, or a case where the cause occurs without the effect.

The author treats two things occurring together as proof that one caused the other. Correlation alone does not rule out coincidence, a third factor, or reverse causation.

The argument draws a broad conclusion from a sample that may be too small, biased, or unrepresentative of the group being discussed.

A key term shifts meaning during the argument. The reasoning looks connected only because the same word is being used in different senses.

The argument assumes what it is trying to prove. A premise may restate the conclusion or depend on the conclusion being true.

The argument attacks the person or source instead of addressing the reasoning or evidence. A speaker's character usually does not decide whether the claim is true.

The argument assumes that what is true of each part must be true of the whole. A team can be strong even if one member is weak, and the reverse can also fail.

The argument assumes that what is true of a whole must be true of each part. A company can be profitable even if one division is not.

The argument treats limited options as exhaustive without support. The missing possibility is often the key weakener or flaw description.

A rule in if-then form. The sufficient condition triggers the necessary condition: if P, then Q means P is enough to guarantee Q.

The valid reversal and negation of a conditional. If P then Q is equivalent to if not Q then not P.

Invalidly moving from if P then Q to if Q then P. Just because all dogs are animals does not mean all animals are dogs.

Invalidly moving from if P then Q to if not P then not Q. Failing to meet one sufficient condition does not prove the necessary condition is absent.

Treat unless as introducing a necessary condition. 'A unless B' means if not B, then A; it also means if not A, then B.

Only if introduces a necessary condition. 'P only if Q' means if P, then Q.

Accept the stimulus and choose what must follow. Avoid answers that add outside assumptions, make causal leaps, or are merely plausible.

Choose the answer best supported by the stimulus, even if it is not mathematically forced. The correct answer should still stay close to the evidence.

On LSAT logic, some means at least one. It does not mean most, many, or not all unless the stimulus separately supports that idea.

Most means more than half. From most A are B and most A are C, you can infer that at least some B are C because the two groups must overlap within A.

Match the argument's structure. Abstract the original into variables, preserve conditional direction, quantifiers, conclusion type, and validity.

Match the same error, not just the same subject matter. First name the flaw in abstract form, then look for the answer that repeats it.

Check conclusion strength, number of groups or terms, conditional direction, and positive or negative wording before reading for topic details.

Find the general rule that best justifies the argument. The correct principle should cover the specific facts without being irrelevant or too narrow.

Use the stated rule like a mini-law. The correct answer is the situation in which the rule's conditions are met and its consequence follows.

Find the answer that allows both surprising facts to be true at the same time. Do not attack either fact; explain how they can coexist.

Find a claim one speaker would accept and the other would reject. The right answer must be addressed by both speakers, not just one.

Two speakers disagree only when they take incompatible positions on the same claim. Talking about related but different issues is not enough.

Find the information that would help judge whether the conclusion follows. A good answer usually tests the central assumption in either direction.

The author reasons that because two cases are similar in one way, they should be similar in another. Strengthen by showing the similarity matters; weaken by showing a relevant difference.

Before looking at answers, predict the kind of response needed from the question stem and argument gap. Prephrasing reduces attraction to tempting but irrelevant choices.

Skip when the structure is clear but the answer choices are time-consuming, especially dense Parallel or formal logic items. Bank easier points and return with remaining time.