Why This Set Is Worth Your Time

Here's the thing most people miss about Logical Reasoning: it is now the single most valuable skill on the LSAT. Since the August 2024 redesign, the scored test is two Logical Reasoning sections and one Reading Comprehension section (plus one unscored section that could be any type). Analytical Reasoning — the old Logic Games — is gone. That means LR is worth roughly two-thirds of your scaled 120–180 score. If you want to move your number, this is where you do it.

The good news is that LR is learnable in a way raw "reading comprehension" is not. Every single question is a variation on a small number of tasks. Once you can name the task and find the gap in the argument, the answer choices stop being a fog and start sorting themselves into one right answer and four predictable traps. This page gives you eight original questions to practice that skill, and — more importantly — the explanations that teach you how to think about each one.

These are 100% original Lovare practice questions written in the style of the current LSAT. They are not real LSAC questions (those are copyrighted). Use them to build technique; then go run reps on official questions in LSAC's LawHub once the method is second nature.

A 60-Second Method Refresher

Before you touch a question, run this loop every time:

1. Read the stem first. The question tells you your job. "Which of the following is an assumption" is a completely different task than "which most weakens." Know your target before you read the argument.
2. Find the conclusion. What is the author trying to convince you of? Everything else is either evidence for it or noise.
3. Find the gap. Almost every LR argument leaps from evidence to conclusion over an unstated gap. That gap is the whole game. Assumption questions ask you to name it, weaken questions ask you to widen it, strengthen questions ask you to close it, flaw questions ask you to describe it.
4. Prephrase. Before reading the choices, predict what the answer should do. Then hunt for the choice that matches.
5. Eliminate on task, not on truth. Wrong answers are usually true, tempting, and irrelevant. The right answer does the specific job the stem asked for.

Now let's run it. Try each question yourself before reading the explanation. Give yourself about 1 minute 25 seconds per question — that's the real pace you need on test day.

The Practice Set

Below are the eight questions in brief; full choices, answers, and explanations follow in the practice items. Work them cold first.

Question 1 — Flaw

A manager argues that a new software rollout caused a productivity increase, because productivity rose the quarter after the software launched. Which type of reasoning error is this? A classic correlation/causation and post-hoc trap.

Question 2 — Necessary Assumption

An argument concludes that a city should build a new bridge because traffic on the existing bridge has doubled. Find the unstated premise the argument depends on.

Question 3 — Weaken

A researcher claims a supplement improves memory based on a study. Identify the fact that most undermines the claim.

Question 4 — Strengthen

An economist argues remote work lowers company costs. Find the choice that most supports the conclusion.

Question 5 — Must Be True (Inference)

A set of premises about a company's hiring policy. Determine what MUST follow.

Question 6 — Parallel Reasoning

Match the logical structure of the stimulus argument.

Question 7 — Method of Reasoning

Describe HOW the author makes the argument.

Question 8 — Paradox (Resolve)

Two seemingly contradictory facts. Find the choice that reconciles them.

How to Review This Set (Don't Skip This)

Getting a question wrong is worthless if you don't diagnose why. For every miss — and every question you got right but weren't sure about — do this:

1. Re-solve it untimed and blind. Cover the answer. Can you reach the right choice with unlimited time? If yes, your problem is timing or focus. If no, your problem is method.
2. Name the trap. Say out loud what made the wrong answer tempting: "It was a true statement that didn't address the conclusion." "It reversed the necessary and sufficient conditions." "It was out of scope." You are building a personal catalog of traps you fall for.
3. Name the gap. Articulate, in one sentence, the exact leap the argument made. If you can't state the gap, you didn't really understand the argument.
4. Log it. Keep a running error log by question type. Patterns emerge fast — most people leak points to two or three trap types over and over.

Do that for 20 questions and you will learn more than doing 100 questions and moving on.

Where to Get Official Practice

These original questions teach the moves. To practice on the real thing under authentic conditions, use LSAC's LawHub, which houses official PrepTests and practice questions. That is the only source of genuine, retired LSAT Logical Reasoning questions. Alternate: learn a technique here, drill it on 15–20 real LawHub questions of the same type, then blind-review every miss.

Common Mistakes People Make Drilling LR

• Doing questions instead of reviewing them. Volume without review just cements bad habits.
• Reading the stimulus before the stem. You waste effort processing an argument without knowing what to look for.
• Falling in love with a choice. Read all five. The LSAT loves a tempting fourth choice followed by the actually-correct fifth.
• Bringing outside knowledge. Everything you need is on the page. "Well, in the real world…" is how you lose points.
• Ignoring conclusion indicators. "Therefore," "thus," "clearly," "so" point to conclusions; "because," "since," "for" point to evidence. Circle them.

Run this set, review it hard, then take the method to LawHub. That's the whole loop.