Free LSAT-LR sample questions

Correct answers: The 'up to 20%' savings were achieved in tests conducted on homes with extremely poor insulation, which is not typical of the average home.; A significant portion of home heating costs is determined by fixed utility fees that are not affected by energy consumption.

This weakens the claim by suggesting the advertised savings are based on an unrepresentative sample. If average homes have better insulation, their potential savings will be much lower, extending the time it takes for the device to pay for itself.

This attacks the core of the payback claim. If a large part of the bill is fixed, even a 20% reduction in the *consumption* part of the bill will result in a much smaller percentage reduction on the *total* bill, thus making the two-year payback period less likely.

Correct answer: A successful company must either innovate or expand its market share. Innovation requires a huge research budget, which we don't have. Therefore, our company must expand its market share to be successful.

The original argument presents a false dichotomy (A or B must happen), eliminates one option (not A), and concludes the other must happen (therefore B). The flaw is that 'subsidize' and 'tax' might not be the *only* two options. This answer choice perfectly mirrors that flawed structure: it presents a potentially false dichotomy (innovate or expand), eliminates one option due to cost, and concludes the other is necessary.

Correct answer: False

The conclusion is not necessarily true. The argument shifts from a general correlation (good cardiovascular health is correlated with longer lifespan) to a definitive individual outcome. An individual who exercises regularly could have their life cut short by an accident or a non-cardiovascular disease. The premises only support a probabilistic claim (they are *more likely* to live longer), not a certain one.

Correct answer: The government incentives did lead to a modest increase in the birth rate, but advances in medical technology caused life expectancy to increase at a much faster rate during the same period.

The discrepancy is that the policy intended to lower the average age failed. This option resolves it by showing that two opposing forces are at play. The policy (increasing births) may have had a small effect in one direction, but another, more powerful factor (dramatically increasing life expectancy) overwhelmed it, leading to the net result of a continued rise in average age.

Correct answer: The most effective way to address a prerequisite for a desired outcome is to invest in the primary institutions that produce that prerequisite.

The argument identifies a desired outcome (attracting tech companies) and a prerequisite for it (an educated workforce). It then concludes the city should invest in the institution that produces the prerequisite (universities). This principle provides the general rule that connects the evidence (the prerequisite) to the conclusion (the investment).

Correct answer: takes a single piece of evidence of a lack of a trait as definitive proof of the complete absence of that trait.

The flaw is a form of hasty generalization. The interviewer finds one instance of a lack of attention to detail (typos on a resume) and concludes that Maria is not 'exceptionally detail-oriented' in general. It's possible for a detail-oriented person to make a mistake on one document. The argument treats this one piece of negative evidence as conclusive proof, which is a logical leap.

Correct answer: the new energy efficiency law will have a disproportionately negative impact on the city's poorest inhabitants.

The argument builds a chain of reasoning: the law requires expensive materials, which increases housing costs, and given the existing affordability crisis, this will harm the poorest residents. The final sentence is the main conclusion that the entire passage is structured to support. The other options are premises or intermediate conclusions used to build up to this final point.

Correct answer: The conditions of having Level-2 clearance and working on a client's project are jointly sufficient for permission to access that client's data.

The policy, as stated, presents necessary conditions ('must have both'). The conclusion treats them as sufficient conditions (if you have them, you are permitted). For the conclusion to be valid, this unstated sufficient assumption must be true. The original rule says P -> (A and B). The argument concludes (A and B) -> P. This option explicitly states that the conditions are sufficient, bridging the logical gap perfectly.flowchart LR subgraph Policy_Rule [Necessary Conditions] Permission --> L2{Level-2 Clearance} Permission --> Project{On Project} end subgraph Argument_Conclusion [Sufficient Conditions] L2_and_Project{L2 AND On Project} --> Has_Permission[Has Permission] end Gap[Logical Gap] -- Bridges --> Argument_Conclusion Policy_Rule -- Fails to Justify --> Has_Permission

Correct answer: The conclusion of the argument is logically valid.

The argument structure is a valid chain of conditional logic. Let CW = Use Climbing Wall, MC = Member of Club, ST = Passed Safety Test. The premises are: 1) CW -> MC. 2) MC -> ST. We can combine these to get CW -> ST. The contrapositive is ~ST -> ~CW. The argument states Alicia has not passed the test (~ST) and concludes she cannot use the wall (~CW), which is a valid deduction. Therefore, the conclusion must be true.sequenceDiagram participant A as Premise 1 participant B as Premise 2 participant C as Conclusion A->>B: Use Wall (CW) --> Member (MC) B->>C: Member (MC) --> Pass Test (ST) Note over A,C: Combined: CW --> ST Note over A,C: Contrapositive: Not ST --> Not CW C-->>A: Alicia is Not ST, therefore Not CW. (Valid)

Correct answer: Before the program was introduced, the two groups of employees had nearly identical average healthcare costs.

The main weakness of the conclusion is self-selection bias: perhaps healthier employees were more likely to join the program in the first place. This option strengthens the causal link by providing a baseline comparison. If both groups had similar costs *before* the program, it makes it much more likely that the program itself is the cause of the difference in costs *after* its implementation.