Logical Reasoning Sample Questions 7 – 10
These sample questions are typical of the Logical Reasoning questions you’ll find on the LSAT. Each question in this section is based on the reasoning presented in a brief passage. In answering the questions, you should not make assumptions that are by common-sense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage. For some questions, more than one of the choices could conceivably answer the question. However, you are to choose the best answer; that is, choose the response that most accurately and completely answers the question.
Question 7 Several critics have claimed that any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry—poetry that is rhymed and metered—is performing a politically conservative act. This is plainly false. Consider Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker, two contemporary poets whose poetry is almost exclusively formal and yet who are themselves politically progressive feminists. The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
No one who is a feminist is also politically conservative.
No poet who writes unrhymed or unmetered poetry is politically conservative.
No one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act.
Anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically conservative never writes poetry that is politically conservative.
The content of a poet’s work, not the work’s form, is the most decisive factor in determining what political consequences, if any, the work will have.
Explanation for Question 7
This question asks you to identify the option containing information that makes the conclusion of the argument follow logically. The conclusion of the argument is that it is false that any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative act. To draw this conclusion logically, one only needs to show at least one contemporary poet who is writing formal poetry and is not thereby performing a politically conservative act. Showing such an instance would provide a counterexample to the claim attributed to the critics, demonstrating that the critics’ generalization is false.
The premise given is that there are two contemporary and politically progressive feminist poets who write formal poetry—Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker. If no one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act, and Peacock and Hacker are politically progressive, it follows logically that neither is capable of performing a politically conservative act. Since both write formal poetry, their writing of formal poetry cannot be a politically conservative act. This shows that one can write formal poetry without performing a politically conservative act, so (C) is the correct response.
If it is true that no one who is a feminist is politically conservative, as response (A) says, we can conclude that Peacock and Hacker, who are identified as being feminists, are not politically conservative. But we already knew this, as they were also identified as being politically progressive. As long as people who are not themselves politically conservative are capable of performing politically conservative acts, the question of whether it is possible for someone to write formal poetry without performing a politically conservative act remains unanswered. (A) is thus incorrect.
If no poet who writes unrhymed and unmetered poetry is politically conservative, as response (B) indicates, this tells us little about Peacock and Hacker, whose poetry, we are told, is almost exclusively formal. Insofar as (B) may indicate that Peacock and Hacker are not politically conservative (because they write some poetry that is not both rhymed and metered), we already knew this, as they are identified as being politically progressive. Since the argument works by presenting Peacock and Hacker as counterexamples to the claim that to write formal poetry is to perform a politically conservative act, (B) contributes nothing in the way of additional support for the conclusion.
Response (D) says that anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically conservative never writes poetry that is politically conservative. However, to make the conclusion of the argument follow logically, one must show that some contemporary poets who write formal poetry are sometimes not performing a politically conservative act. The information in (D) is not applicable to this question.
Response (E) concerns the effects of the content of a poet’s work on determining the political consequences of the work. However, the question that must be answered is whether any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry is performing a politically conservative act, not what the consequences of that poetry might be. The question of whether writing a particular poem is a politically conservative act is different from the question of what that poem’s political consequences will be. Moreover, because the content of neither Peacock’s nor Hacker’s work has been specified, (E) does not even allow us to draw a conclusion about the political consequences of their work.
This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 8
About two million years ago, lava dammed up a river in western Asia and caused a small lake to form. The lake existed for about half a million years. Bones of an early human ancestor were recently found in the ancient lake-bottom sediments that lie on top of the layer of lava. Therefore, ancestors of modern humans lived in western Asia between two million and one-and-a-half million years ago.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
There were no other lakes in the immediate area before the lava dammed up the river.
The lake contained fish that the human ancestors could have used for food.
The lava that lay under the lake-bottom sediments did not contain any human fossil remains.
The lake was deep enough that a person could drown in it.
The bones were already in the sediments by the time the lake dried up.
Explanation for Question 8
This question asks you to find the assumption required by the argument. In other words, find the statement whose truth is required if the argument is to succeed in demonstrating its conclusion.
Response (E) is the correct response. If the bones were not already in the sediments when the lake dried up, that means that they got into the sediments later; that is, less than one-and-a-half million years ago. But then their existence would not provide evidence that there were human ancestors in western Asia between two million and one-and-a-half million years ago; that is, the conclusion of the argument would not follow if (E) is false.
Response (A) is incorrect. The existence of other lakes in the area is irrelevant to the argument.
Response (B) is incorrect. If response (B) turned out to be true, that might provide a reason why humans were in the area of the lake, but this particular explanation need not be assumed in order for the argument to succeed in demonstrating its conclusion.
Response (C) is incorrect. It does not matter for the argument whether or not there were such remains in the lava, and the argument does not state or imply that there were no humans in the region prior to two million years ago. This was by far the most popular incorrect response.
Response (D) is incorrect. The remains could have gotten into the lake in any number of other ways; to give just one, perhaps the people in the area put their dead into the lake.
This was of medium difficulty, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 9
In jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than are drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor. Yet Highway Safety Department records show that making use of headlights mandatory at all times does nothing to reduce the overall number of collisions.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the information above?
In jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, one driver in four uses headlights for daytime driving in good weather.
A law making use of headlights mandatory at all times is not especially difficult to enforce.
Only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not legally required.
There are some jurisdictions in which it is illegal to use headlights when visibility is good.
The jurisdictions where use of headlights is mandatory at all times are those where daytime visibility is frequently poor.
Explanation for Question 9
This question asks you to resolve an apparent discrepancy in information. The discrepancy arises because the passage presents two pieces of information that are in conflict.
Response (C) is correct. If only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not legally required, then this explains why, when headlight use is optional, those drivers are less likely to be involved in a collision than are drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor. It stands to reason that if headlight use is made mandatory, many less-careful drivers will also use headlights. But then the group of drivers using headlights expands to include not only the very careful drivers, but drivers of all sorts—including some who are not very careful. So it is not at all surprising that the overall number of collisions is not reduced: unsafe drivers do not become more careful when forced to use headlights.
Response (A) is incorrect. Statistical information about the percentage of drivers who use headlights for daytime driving in jurisdictions where such use is optional does not help to explain why making the use of headlights mandatory does not reduce overall collisions.
Response (B) is incorrect. Rather than helping to resolve the apparent discrepancy, this statement would, if true, rule out a possible resolution. If, contrary to response (B), such a law were difficult to enforce, that might help explain why such laws do not reduce collision rates.
Response (D) is incorrect. This choice can do nothing to explain discrepancies between cases in which the use of headlights is optional when visibility is good and cases where the use of headlights is mandatory at all times. This choice introduces a third scenario that does not explain anything about either of the situations discussed in the passage.
Response (E) is incorrect. If it is true that the jurisdictions in which the use of headlights is mandatory are areas that have poor daytime visibility, one might expect the use of headlights to reduce the overall number of collisions, at least in those places. But in any case, response (E) does not explain why, in jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in collisions. This was the most popular incorrect answer.
This was a difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Question 10
The Venetian Renaissance painter Vittore Carpaccio used sumptuous reds in most of his paintings. Since the recently discovered Venetian Renaissance painting Erato Declaiming contains notable sumptuous reds, it is probably by Carpaccio.
Which one of the following contains a pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
Most Renaissance painters worked in a single medium, either tempera or oil. Since the Renaissance painting Calypso's Bower is in oil, its painter probably always used oil.
In Italian Renaissance painting, the single most common subject was the Virgin and Child, so the single most common subject in Western art probably is also the Virgin and Child.
Works of art in the Renaissance were mostly commissioned by patrons, so the Renaissance work The Dances of Terpsichore was probably commissioned by a patron.
The anonymous painting St. Sebastian is probably an early Florentine painting since it is in tempera, and most early Florentine paintings were in tempera.
Since late-Renaissance paintings were mostly in oil, the Venetian late-Renaissance painter Arnoldi, whose works are now lost, probably painted in oil.
Explanation for Question 10
This question asks you to find the response that contains a pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to that contained in the passage’s argument. To do this, you must understand the flawed pattern in the passage’s argument. Then choose the response that exhibits the most similar flawed pattern.
Response (D) is correct. Just because most As are Bs, that does not mean a particular B is likely to be an A. There may be many more Bs than As. This is the flaw in the passage, and in response (D).
Response (A) is incorrect. This argument is not flawed. Its premises, if true, provide good evidence for drawing its conclusion.
Response (B) is incorrect. This argument is flawed in generalizing from a specific case that may not be representative. But that is not the flawed pattern in the passage’s argument.
Response (C) is incorrect. This argument is not flawed. Its premises, if true, provide good evidence for drawing its conclusion.
Response (E) is incorrect. This argument is not flawed. Its premises, if true, provide good evidence for drawing its conclusion.
This was a very difficult question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Questions 1-3
Brief passages, each followed by a question and its explanation.
Questions 4-6
Brief passages, each followed by a question and its explanation.
Prepare for the LSAT with Drill Sets in LawHub
Free drill sets focusing on specific types of Reading Comprehension and Logical Reasoning questions are available on LawHub. You’ll receive personalized reports on your practice set performance, helping you identify areas for improvement and providing the most relevant instructional materials for those areas. All reading passages and questions have hints and explanations.