Before You Start: What This Practice Test Is

Most "free LSAT practice test" pages online are stale, thin, or quietly reproducing copyrighted LSAC material. This one isn't. Every question below is written by Lovare in the style of the current LSAT, and it reflects the test as it exists right now — not the version your older cousin took.

Here's the format that matters: since August 2024, the LSAT consists of two scored Logical Reasoning sections and one scored Reading Comprehension section, plus one unscored (experimental) section. It's scored on the classic 120–180 scale. The old Analytical Reasoning section — what everyone called Logic Games — was removed. If a study resource still tells you to practice grouping and sequencing games, throw it out. It's teaching you a section that no longer exists.

That change is good news for you: with Logic Games gone, Logical Reasoning is now two-thirds of your scored test. Getting good at LR is the single highest-leverage thing you can do. This set is weighted accordingly.

How to Take This Set

Treat this like the real thing, not a casual read-through. Passive reading builds zero skill.

• Time yourself. On the real test you get roughly 1 minute 25 seconds per Logical Reasoning question (35 minutes for ~25 questions). For Reading Comprehension, budget about 8–9 minutes per passage, including the questions.
• Commit to an answer before you check. No peeking. A guess you're forced to defend teaches you more than an answer you glanced at.
• Blind review first. After you finish, go back to any question you were unsure about and re-solve it without the answer key. Only then check.
• Read every explanation — especially for questions you got right. Getting the right answer for the wrong reason is a problem waiting to happen on test day.

A 60-Second Method Refresher

You'll use two core approaches across this set.

For Logical Reasoning: Read the question stem first so you know your job before you read the stimulus. Then read the argument and identify its conclusion (what the author is trying to convince you of) and its evidence (the support). Before looking at the choices, articulate in your own words what the argument does — and where it's vulnerable. Then attack the answers, eliminating aggressively.

For Reading Comprehension: Read for structure, not detail. On your first pass, track the author's main point, each paragraph's job, any viewpoints other than the author's, and the tone. Don't memorize facts — you can look those back up. When a question asks about a detail, return to the text; never answer from memory.

Section 1: Logical Reasoning (7 Original Questions)

Do these timed. The full explanations for all questions are collected in the answer key further down, and each is also attached to the question in the practice bank on this page. Question types are labeled so you can see the range LR covers.

Question 1 (Flaw)

Stem: The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...

Argument: Residents of Millbrook who exercise regularly report lower stress levels than residents who do not. Therefore, the community center's new fitness program, which has enrolled hundreds of residents, must be reducing stress across the town.

This is a classic causation-and-sampling flaw. Work it before scrolling to the key.

Question 2 (Assumption — Necessary)

Stem: The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

Argument: The new tax software cannot be responsible for the accounting errors, because the firm used the same software last year and had no errors then.

Question 3 (Strengthen)

Stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

Argument: A study found that people who take a short walk after lunch are more productive in the afternoon than those who stay at their desks. The researchers concluded that the walking causes the productivity boost.

Question 4 (Weaken)

Stem: Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

Argument: Since the city installed brighter streetlights downtown last spring, reported crime downtown has fallen by 20 percent. Clearly, the brighter lighting is deterring criminals.

Question 5 (Main Point / Conclusion)

Stem: Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Argument: Some critics claim that electric vehicles are no cleaner than gas cars because generating electricity produces emissions. But this ignores that power grids are steadily shifting to renewables, while gas engines can never get cleaner. Electric vehicles, therefore, are the better long-term choice for reducing emissions.

Question 6 (Parallel Reasoning)

Stem: Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

Argument: Every novel this author has published has become a bestseller. Her next book is a novel. So it will surely become a bestseller.

Question 7 (Inference / Must Be True)

Stem: If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Statements: All members of the debate club are also members of the student council. No member of the student council is a first-year student. Some members of the debate club volunteer at the library.

Section 2: Reading Comprehension (1 Original Passage, 3 Questions)

Read the passage once for structure, then answer. Budget about 8 minutes total.

Passage: For much of the twentieth century, art historians treated the restoration of paintings as a purely technical task: the goal was to return a work to the condition its creator intended. Restorers cleaned away centuries of grime and varnish, filled in losses, and often repainted damaged areas to match surrounding passages. This approach rested on a confident assumption — that a work's "original" state was both knowable and recoverable.

Recent scholarship has unsettled that confidence. Critics point out that the varnish and even some of the surface changes restorers remove may reflect deliberate choices by later owners, or the natural aging that a viewer in 1700 would already have accepted as part of the work. To strip these away, they argue, is not to recover an original but to impose a modern taste for brightness and clarity that the artist may never have anticipated. A cleaned painting, in this view, is a new object — one shaped as much by the restorer's aesthetic as by the artist's.

A more moderate position has since emerged. Its proponents accept that no restoration is neutral, yet they resist the conclusion that all intervention is therefore illegitimate. The task, they suggest, is not to recover a mythical original but to make choices that are reversible, well documented, and openly acknowledged as interpretive. On this account, honesty about the restorer's role, rather than a false claim to objectivity, is what distinguishes responsible practice.

Question 8 (Main Point)

Stem: Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

Question 9 (Author's Attitude / Function)

Stem: The author's discussion of "a viewer in 1700" (second paragraph) primarily serves to...

Question 10 (Inference)

Stem: It can be inferred that proponents of the "more moderate position" would most likely agree with which one of the following?

Answer Key and Full Explanations

Don't read this until you've committed to answers for all 10. Then read every explanation in full — the trap analysis is where the improvement lives.

1. (Flaw) — Answer: The argument confuses a correlation between exercise and lower stress with proof that a specific program is causing stress to fall. The evidence is a correlation among individuals (exercisers vs. non-exercisers report different stress). The conclusion leaps to a causal claim about the whole town driven by one program. Two things go wrong: the correlation doesn't establish that exercise causes lower stress (maybe less-stressed people are simply more likely to exercise), and even if it did, nothing shows the fitness program specifically changed anyone's behavior or town-wide stress. Trap answers on flaw questions typically describe a real logical error that this argument didn't make — watch for choices about "appeal to authority" or "circular reasoning" that sound sophisticated but don't match.

2. (Necessary Assumption) — Answer: Nothing relevant about the accounting process changed between last year and this year except what the argument accounts for. The argument's logic is: same software, no errors before, so the software isn't the cause now. That only holds if conditions were otherwise comparable — if a new employee, new data, or new procedure was introduced this year, the software's clean record last year proves nothing. Use the negation test: negate the assumption ("the process changed significantly this year") and the argument collapses. That's the signature of a necessary assumption.

3. (Strengthen) — Answer: In the study, participants were randomly assigned to walk or to stay at their desks. The argument makes a causal claim (walking causes productivity) from what looks like an observational finding. The biggest threat is that more productive or energetic people chose to walk. Random assignment removes that alternative explanation, which is exactly how you strengthen a causal argument — by ruling out a competing cause. Trap: answers that merely restate the correlation or add an irrelevant benefit of walking don't strengthen the causal link.

4. (Weaken) — Answer: During the same period, the city also assigned additional police patrols to the downtown area. The argument credits brighter lights for the crime drop. Introducing an alternative cause that occurred at the same time — more patrols — undercuts the claim that the lighting was responsible. This is the standard way to weaken a causal argument: propose another explanation for the observed effect. Trap: an answer saying crime fell in other parts of the city too would also weaken it (the drop wasn't unique to the lit area), but a strong version naming a concrete alternative cause in the same area is the most direct hit. Beware answers that describe crime rising elsewhere — those are irrelevant to whether lighting caused the downtown drop.

5. (Main Conclusion) — Answer: Electric vehicles are the better long-term choice for reducing emissions. The final sentence is the conclusion; everything before it is either an opposing view (the critics' claim) or evidence rebutting it (grids going renewable, engines can't improve). A common trap on main-point questions is choosing an accurate statement that is actually a premise — here, "power grids are shifting to renewables" is true and stated, but it's support, not the point being argued for.

6. (Parallel Reasoning) — Answer: the argument that matches this structure: a property has held for every past instance of a category, so it will hold for the next instance of that category. The original reasons from an unbroken track record to a confident prediction about the next case (every past novel was a bestseller → next novel will be too). The correct parallel answer will share that abstract form regardless of subject matter — e.g., "Every game this team has played this season, it has won; its next game is this season; therefore it will win." On parallel questions, match the logical structure and the strength/type of the conclusion (here, an overconfident prediction), not the topic. Trap answers keep the topic (books, authors) but change the logic.

7. (Inference / Must Be True) — Answer: No member of the debate club is a first-year student. Chain the conditionals: all debate club members are on student council; no student council member is a first-year student; therefore no debate club member is a first-year student. That's a valid deduction. The statement that "some debate club members volunteer at the library" is a distractor — it supports possibilities (some library volunteers are on the council) but nothing that must be true beyond the guaranteed chain. Trap answers on inference questions overreach — e.g., "all student council members are in the debate club" reverses the relationship, which the premises never license.

8. (RC Main Point) — Answer: Although the traditional aim of returning a painting to its original state has been convincingly challenged, a defensible middle position holds that restoration is legitimate when it is reversible, documented, and openly interpretive. The passage moves through three stages — the old confident view, the critique that unsettled it, and the moderate synthesis — and the author gives the last position the most sympathetic and detailed treatment. A main-point answer must capture that arc and land on the moderate position. Traps: choices that state only the critique (too narrow, missing paragraph three) or that describe the old view as still dominant (contradicts the passage).

9. (Function) — Answer: to illustrate that some changes restorers remove might have been accepted, even expected, by earlier viewers, supporting the critics' claim that removal imposes modern taste. The "viewer in 1700" is an example deployed inside the critics' argument to show that aging isn't obviously a corruption of the original. Function questions ask why the detail is there, not what it says. Trap answers restate the content ("it describes how paintings looked in 1700") without naming its argumentative job.

10. (RC Inference) — Answer: A restoration can be responsible even if it does not recover the painting's original condition. The moderate proponents explicitly abandon the goal of a "mythical original" and relocate responsibility in honesty, reversibility, and documentation. So they would agree responsibility doesn't depend on recovering the original. Trap answers attribute to the moderates a view held by the critics (that all intervention is illegitimate) — but the passage says the moderates specifically resist that conclusion.

How to Review This Set — and Everything You Practice

Scoring yourself is the least useful thing you can do with a practice test. The score is a snapshot; the review is the training. After every set:

1. Categorize your misses by question type. If three of your four wrong answers were Weaken questions, you've found your next drill.
2. For each miss, write one sentence explaining the trap you fell for. "I picked the answer that restated the correlation instead of ruling out a cause." Naming the trap is how you stop repeating it.
3. Re-solve every question you got right but felt unsure about. Those are your true weaknesses hiding behind lucky guesses.
4. Look for patterns across sets, not within one set. One set is too small to diagnose from. After ten sets, your error log will tell you exactly where your points are leaking.

Where to Get Official, Scored Practice

Original practice like this set is ideal for drilling specific skills and warming up. But when you're ready for a full-length, timed, scored experience under real conditions, use the official source: LSAC's LawHub. It offers real, previously administered PrepTests in the actual digital testing interface, so nothing about test day surprises you. We deliberately don't reproduce LSAC's questions here — they're copyrighted, and you should be practicing on the genuine article for your scored full-lengths anyway. Use original sets for skill-building; use LawHub for realistic scoring.

Next Steps

Once you've reviewed this set, the highest-value move is to go deep on Logical Reasoning question types one at a time — Flaw, Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, and the rest — since LR is two-thirds of your scored test. Master the trap patterns for each type, then return to timed mixed sets like this one to test whether the skills hold up under pressure.