LSAT Practice Questions (2026) — Free Sample Questions with Answers

Answer: B

An unusually abundant seed supply in recent years has allowed voles in the Calder Hills to breed more often each season.: Explains it: higher vole reproduction can outpace the losses to more hawks.

Red-tailed hawks in the Calder Hills have been observed catching voles more frequently in recent years than they did previously.: Correct. This is the answer because it does not explain anything. More hawk kills of voles makes a rising vole population harder to understand, so it deepens the puzzle.

Foxes, which once killed far more of the Calder Hills’ voles than hawks did, have nearly disappeared from the area.: Explains it: the loss of a bigger vole predator can more than offset additional hawk predation.

The growth of the hawk population has been driven mainly by a rise in rabbits, which the hawks prefer to voles whenever rabbits are available.: Explains it: more hawks need not mean more vole kills if the hawks are mostly eating rabbits.

Dense new ground cover in the hills has made voles much harder for hawks to spot from the air.: Explains it: each hawk catches fewer voles, so the hawk increase need not cut into the vole population.

Explain EXCEPT. Four answers explain how prey and predator both grew. The credited answer is the one that fails to explain, here by making the puzzle worse.

Answer: A

Rosa’s manager will not review her report this week. If Rosa submits the report tomorrow, her manager will review it this week. And Rosa will submit the report tomorrow if she finishes it tonight. So Rosa will not finish the report tonight.: Correct. Rearranged, this is Finish → Submit → Review; not Review; therefore not Finish. That is the same valid chain-and-contrapositive structure as the original, with the sentences in a different order.

If the grant is awarded, the museum will expand its east wing. If the museum expands its east wing, it will hold a gala. The museum will hold a gala. So the grant will be awarded.: Affirms the consequent of a chain, which is invalid; the original reasons validly by contraposition.

If the shipment arrives early, the store will hold a sale. If the shipment arrives early, the store will hire extra staff. But the store will not hire extra staff. So the store will not hold a sale.: Two conditionals share an antecedent rather than forming a chain; denying one consequent cannot rule out the other, since the sale could happen for another reason.

If the council approves the budget, the library will extend its hours. If the library extends its hours, it will hire more staff. But the council will not approve the budget. So the library will not hire more staff.: Denies the first antecedent and concludes that the final consequent fails, which is invalid. The original denies the final consequent and validly concludes that the first antecedent fails.

Either the gallery will extend the exhibit or it will close for renovation. The gallery will not close for renovation. So the gallery will extend the exhibit.: Valid, but it is a disjunctive syllogism (A or B; not B; so A), not a chain of conditionals.

Parallel reasoning. Abstract the structure: A → B, B → C, not C, therefore not A. Match the logical form, not the order of sentences or the topic.

Answer: D

Freshwater mussels are more sensitive to water pollution than speckled darters are.: Irrelevant comparison: if anything, it suggests an alternative cause, and the argument needs no claim about relative sensitivity.

The darter population in the Tannet River began to decline before the mussel population did.: Not required: the two declines could have begun at the same time and the darter loss could still be a contributing cause. Negating this does not destroy the argument.

No factor other than the decline of the darters has contributed in any way to the sharp decline of the Tannet River’s mussel population.: Too strong: the conclusion says the darter decline is a cause "at least in part," which leaves room for other causes.

The darters that remain in the Tannet River are too few to host all of the mussel larvae that would otherwise develop.: Correct. Negate it: the remaining darters can still host every larva that would otherwise develop. Then losing darters has cost the mussels nothing, and the darter decline cannot explain the mussel decline. The argument collapses, so it depends on this.

The decline of the darter population in the Tannet River was caused by human activity.: Out of scope: why the darters declined does not matter to whether their decline contributed to the mussels’ decline.

Necessary assumption. Premises: mussel larvae need darters; darters declined. Conclusion: the darter decline helped cause the mussel decline. Gap: the decline must actually limit larval development, which requires that there are no longer enough darters to go around.

Answer: C

If Mara takes the early train, she will arrive before noon. If she arrives before noon, she will attend the luncheon. Mara will attend the luncheon. So she will take the early train.: Not parallel: it affirms the final consequent and infers the first antecedent, which is an invalid pattern.

If the bakery on Elm Street adds a second oven, it can double its daily output. If it doubles its daily output, it will need a larger storefront. The bakery will not add a second oven this year. So it will not need a larger storefront.: Not parallel: it denies the first antecedent and infers the denial of the final consequent, which is an invalid pattern.

If the orchard is sprayed this week, the crew must rent a sprayer. But the crew will rent a sprayer only if the cooperative approves the cost. The cooperative will not approve the cost. So the orchard will not be sprayed this week.: Correct. Sprayed → rent, rent → approval, no approval, therefore not sprayed: the same valid chain and conclusion as the original.

The museum will open its new wing only if it hires more guards. It will hire more guards if it receives the grant. The museum has received the grant. So it will open its new wing.: Not parallel: it treats the necessary condition (hiring guards) as sufficient for opening the wing.

If the team wins on Saturday, it will make the playoffs. If it makes the playoffs, ticket sales will rise. So if ticket sales do not rise, the team did not win on Saturday.: Close but not parallel: it has no categorical premise and draws a conditional conclusion, whereas the original denies a term outright and concludes categorically.

Parallel reasoning: the pattern is A → B, B → C ("only if"), not C, therefore not A, a valid chain run backward by contrapositive. The match needs the same chain, the same categorical denial of the last term, and the same denial of the first term in the conclusion.

Answer: A

The patients in the trial were recruited at clinics, which patients with chronic migraines typically visit when their migraines have become more frequent than usual for them.: Correct. It implies the pre-trial baseline was an unusually bad stretch, so migraine days might have fallen without the drug as patients returned to their normal rate.

Velzorin causes mild drowsiness in some of the patients who take it.: Irrelevant: side effects say nothing about whether the drug reduces migraine frequency.

In a similar trial, another migraine drug reduced patients' migraine days by 50 percent.: Irrelevant comparison: another drug working better does not show that Velzorin did not work.

Some patients in the trial had experienced many more migraine days before the trial than had other patients.: Irrelevant: differences among patients do not undermine the before-and-after comparison.

The patients who reported the largest reductions in migraine days were those who took Velzorin most consistently.: Strengthens: a dose-response pattern supports the drug's effectiveness.

Weaken: the argument compares trial results with a baseline that it assumes was typical. If the baseline period was unusually bad, the improvement may be a return to normal rather than an effect of the drug.

Answer: E

Culling the introduced deer on Moss Island is not justified, because the deer have lived on the island for more than a century.: Wrong reason: the principle does not mention how long a species has been present, so this judgment rests on a consideration the principle ignores.

Culling the introduced foxes on Tarn Island is justified even though nonlethal methods would adequately protect the native terns, because the foxes threaten the terns with local extinction.: Contradicts the principle: when a nonlethal method would suffice, a necessary condition for justified culling is missing.

Culling the introduced rats on Corrie Island is justified, because the rats threaten the native petrels with local extinction and no nonlethal method could reduce that threat to an acceptable level.: Reverses the conditional: the principle gives necessary conditions, not sufficient ones. Meeting both conditions does not, by this principle, establish that culling is justified.

Culling the native wolves that threaten an introduced population of sheep is not justified, because the sheep are not native.: Outside the principle: it governs culling introduced species. It says nothing about culling native wolves.

Culling the introduced ferrets on Gale Island is not justified, because relocating them would reduce their threat to the island's native plovers to an acceptable level.: Correct. "Only if" makes both conditions necessary. Here a nonlethal method, relocation, would reduce the threat to an acceptable level. A necessary condition fails, so the principle requires the judgment that culling is not justified.

Principle — apply (conditional logic). "Justified only if A and B" means justified → A and B. The only valid application concludes "not justified" from a failed condition. Concluding "justified" because both conditions hold treats a necessary condition as a sufficient one.

Answer: D

Most residents of towns that kept their newspapers read those newspapers regularly.: Too strong: the argument can work even if only a minority of residents read the paper. "Most" is not required.

Turnout in municipal elections is the only meaningful measure of civic participation.: Too strong and off-target: the conclusion is only about municipal election turnout, so the argument needs no claim about other measures.

Before the closures, towns that lost their newspapers had higher turnout in municipal elections than did towns that kept their newspapers.: Not required: the argument tracks changes within each group, so the towns' starting levels of turnout do not matter.

The decline in turnout in towns that lost their newspapers was not mainly caused by some factor that also led those newspapers to close.: Correct. Negate it: a common cause, such as a shrinking, disengaged population, both closed the papers and lowered turnout. Then the closures did not reduce turnout; they were just another symptom. The causal conclusion requires ruling this out.

No town that kept its local newspaper experienced any decline in municipal turnout.: Too strong: the stimulus speaks of averages. Some towns with papers could have had declines without hurting the argument.

Necessary assumption (causal). The evidence is a correlation between closure and falling turnout; the conclusion is causal. The argument must assume no third factor drove both. Watch for options that overstate what the argument needs ("most", "only", "no town").

Answer: D

presumes that the expansion of the nursing staff caused the decline in reported burnout: Misdescribes the argument: the administrator mentions the expansion but draws no causal conclusion from it. The conclusion is only about how many nurses report symptoms.

relies on data from too short a period to reveal a lasting trend: Not the flaw: the conclusion compares two points in time and predicts no trend.

fails to consider that many of the nurses who reported burnout two years ago may since have left the hospital's staff: Irrelevant to the flaw: turnover would not affect whether the current count is smaller than the earlier count. The comparison is between headcounts at two times, whoever the individuals are.

overlooks the possibility that a smaller percentage of a larger staff can represent a greater number of nurses: Correct. The conclusion is about a number ("fewer nurses"), but the evidence is percentages of a staff that has grown. Forty percent of 100 nurses is 40, while 30 percent of 150 is 45. The count can rise even as the percentage falls.

assumes that the percentage of nurses reporting burnout will continue to decline: Misdescribes the argument: the administrator makes no prediction about the future.

Flaw (percentages versus amounts). A falling percentage supports "fewer" only if the total did not grow enough to offset it. Here the staff was explicitly enlarged.

Answer: C

No member who joined the club before 2010 has ever won the club championship.: Overgeneralizes: we know only that the rules-committee members who joined before 2010 are not champions. Other pre-2010 members could be.

Every member who has served as club treasurer has won the club championship.: Reverses the first conditional: champion → treasurer does not give treasurer → champion.

Some members who joined the club before 2010 have never won the club championship.: Correct. Take a rules-committee member who joined before 2010. Serving on the committee means never having been treasurer. Never having been treasurer means never having been champion (contrapositive). So at least one pre-2010 member has never won the championship.

Some members who joined the club before 2010 have at some point served as club treasurer.: Not established: the premises are compatible with no pre-2010 member ever having been treasurer.

Some members of the rules committee have served as club treasurer.: Must be false, not true: the second statement says no former treasurer serves on the rules committee.

Must be true (conditional chain with "some"). Champion → treasurer → not on rules committee. Contrapositive: on rules committee → never treasurer → never champion. Combine this with "some rules-committee members joined before 2010".

Answer: E

Red-backed salamanders are more sensitive to habitat disturbance than any other amphibian in the Corran Hills.: Irrelevant comparison, and too strong: the argument needs nothing about other amphibians.

Logging companies will continue to remove fallen logs from the Corran Hills in the coming decade.: Out of scope: future logging has no bearing on what caused the past decline.

No factor other than the removal of fallen logs has contributed to the salamanders' decline.: Too strong: the conclusion calls log removal "a major cause," which allows other contributing causes.

Red-backed salamander populations in forests where fallen logs remain have stayed stable over the past decade.: A strengthener, not a requirement: such a comparison would help the argument, but the argument can stand without it.

The salamanders have not readily shifted to laying eggs at some other widely available site.: Correct. Negate it: if the salamanders easily switched to other plentiful nesting sites, losing the logs would not have cost them breeding habitat, and the causal claim would collapse.

Necessary assumption (causal). Conclusion: log removal is a major cause of the decline. Premise: the salamanders lay eggs almost only in logs, and the logs were removed. The argument requires that the loss of logs actually reduced breeding, so the salamanders must not have simply switched sites.

Answer: E

Passage A argues that oral testimony is unreliable, whereas Passage B argues that oral testimony is more reliable than written documents.: Too extreme for Passage B. Passage B says that "no class of evidence enjoys automatic priority" and that testimony should not be "accepted uncritically," so it does not rank testimony above documents.

The two passages defend the same position, but Passage B adds the qualification that testimony must not be accepted uncritically.: Half right. Both agree testimony needs scrutiny, but Passage B says Passage A’s concession "gives away too much," so they do not hold the same position.

Passage B provides specific examples that support the general conclusion reached in Passage A.: Reversed relationship. Passage B’s examples (the police log and the "vacant" surveys) are used to challenge Passage A’s view, not to support it.

Passage A describes a method of historical research, and Passage B proposes extending that method to new kinds of sources.: Not stated. Passage B criticizes Passage A’s approach rather than extending it.

Passage B rejects an assumption on which Passage A’s position depends: that contemporaneous documents reliably show what happened.: Correct. Passage A would accept factual claims only if they "can be checked against documents produced at the time." Passage B says this "familiar defense" presumes "the written record furnishes a neutral baseline" and attacks that presumption.

Comparative relationship: Passage B opens by describing Passage A’s view ("a familiar defense") and then attacks its premise. That is point and counterpoint aimed at an assumption.

Answer: B

Courts have largely abandoned the rule of lenity because the fair-warning rationale offered for it rests on the false premise that ordinary people actually read criminal statutes before acting.: Half right and too strong. The second paragraph does criticize the fair-warning rationale, but the passage says the rule survives "largely as a ceremonial phrase," not that courts abandoned it, and this choice omits the institutional rationale that is the passage’s focus.

Understood as protecting the legislature’s role in defining crimes rather than as ensuring fair warning, lenity deserves more weight than many courts now give it.: Correct. The passage describes lenity’s decline (paragraph 1), rejects the fair-warning basis as "a fiction" (paragraph 2), presents the institutional basis (paragraph 3), draws from it that lenity "belongs near the beginning of the interpretive inquiry" (paragraph 4), and defends this against critics (paragraph 5).

The rule of lenity should be applied only in cases in which defendants could not have known that their conduct was wrongful.: Contradicts the passage. The fourth paragraph says that on Okafor’s view lenity applies "even when a defendant plainly knew that his conduct was wrongful."

Legislatures rather than courts should bear the costs of clear criminal lawmaking, even though doing so will lead them to draft overinclusive statutes.: Too narrow, and it misstates the passage. This restates only the final paragraph, and the claim that legislatures "will" draft overinclusive statutes is the critics’ prediction, which the author does not endorse.

Legislative history should not be consulted in interpreting criminal statutes, because it consists of statements that were never voted upon.: Too narrow and too strong. The passage objects to using legislative history "to expand criminal liability," which is one supporting consequence in paragraph 4, not the passage’s overall point.

Main point: the answer must cover the whole arc of the passage (decline, a weak rationale rejected, a stronger rationale offered, its consequences), not one paragraph.

Answer: E

To encourage employees to report their own errors, a company promises that self-reported errors will not lead to internal discipline.: Missing element. No injured third party loses evidence in a proceeding meant to compensate her; the only cost falls on the company.

To discourage concealment, a rule requires employers to disclose all workplace accidents to a government agency within a set period.: Wrong mechanism. Mandatory disclosure imposes a duty; it does not shield admissions from use by the injured party.

To encourage candor, a rule protects a manager's general statements of concern after an accident while allowing admissions of fault to be used in court.: Wrong concern. This parallels the sympathy-only statute, whose difficulty (evasive phrasing) passage B raises in paragraph 1, not the fault-inclusive one.

To speed the resolution of claims, a rule caps the damages that injured workers may recover from employers who promptly admit fault.: Partial match. The injured party bears a cost, but through a damages cap, not through the exclusion of the admission as evidence.

To encourage supervisors to report their own safety violations, a rule bars use of the reports in suits by workers injured by those violations.: Correct. As in passage B, paragraph 2, candor is encouraged by keeping the admission out of the very proceeding in which the injured party seeks redress, so that the injured party "bear[s] part of the cost" of the other's candor.

Analogy questions in a pair often test whether you can tell the passage's two objections apart; build the abstract pattern (admission shielded from the injured party's own case) before reading choices.

Answer: C

An office worker moves his savings from an ordinary bank account to a fund that pays a higher rate of return over the same period.: Wrong model. This is the interest-rate-only saver the final sentence says the economists assumed; it involves neither commitment nor refusal of claims.

A shop owner borrows money from a cousin at no interest so that she can buy new shelving for her store immediately rather than saving for several months.: Wrong model. This matches the economists' "earliest answer"—getting a lump sum sooner—not Okonjo's protective account.

A freelance writer locks part of each payment in an account she cannot draw on before a set date, so she can truthfully tell friends seeking loans it is unavailable.: Correct. This mirrors both pressures in paragraph 3: the locked account guards against her own spending (internal), and its unavailability gives "an acceptable refusal" to others' claims (external).

A group of neighbors pools money each month to buy household supplies in bulk and thereby obtain a lower price per item than any of them could get alone.: Superficial similarity. Pooling is shared, but the benefit is a price discount, not protection of savings from oneself or others.

A farmer lends money to a neighbor in order to build a reputation for generosity in the village that will help him obtain loans of his own later.: Half right. It invokes reputation, which in the passage explains low default risk, but not the association's main role of shielding savings.

For analogy questions, reduce the passage's mechanism to its abstract form—a binding commitment that guards savings against both one's own temptation and others' claims—and find the option that has every part.

Answer: A

Letters by Leiden collectors of the period refer to their tronies by names such as "my Vanity" and "the Pious Widow.": Correct. Her interpretive claim is that buyers read tronies as types—"vanity, piety"—and the author's objection is that the surviving records "reveal nothing of how owners regarded them." Owners' own words naming the works as moral types fill exactly that gap.

Dealers' records show that tronies were sold far more often than unframed oil sketches of individual faces.: Half right. This supports the commercial claim (finished works with buyers), which the author already accepts, but says nothing about how buyers interpreted the figures.

Several tronies by well-known painters were later reworked into figures in large history paintings.: Wrong direction. This supports the older "workshop byproduct" view, if anything, and is silent on how owners read tronies.

Engraved copies of popular tronies were sold in large numbers to buyers who could not afford to purchase oil paintings.: Irrelevant. Wide circulation of copies shows demand, not whether buyers saw moral types or admired brushwork; the author even compares tronies to engravings bought "without pondering" their subjects.

Probate inventories frequently record tronies hanging in the principal rooms of ordinary households.: Already stated, and it concerns display, not interpretation. The author grants this evidence and still finds the interpretive claim unsecured.

To strengthen a claim in RC, find the gap the passage itself identifies—here, the lack of evidence about how owners regarded tronies—and choose the fact that closes it.