LSAT practice questions and answers 2026. Tap an option to test yourself — you'll see the correct answer and a plain-English explanation for every question. Free, no login.
Q11Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the argument?
✓ Correct answer: A. The events that are often attributed with causing Rome’s fall are actually the result of an earlier event.
The statements are discussing how historians incorrectly attribute Rome’s fall to two events that were actually caused by an earlier event. Since the earlier events caused the later two events, the earlier event is the root cause of Rome’s fall.
Q12The orbital trajectory of the planet Pluto has been taking it further away from the Sun. Virtually all of that planet's heat comes from sunlight and less of it reaches the planet as it moves further away. Surprisingly, measurements made by astronomers indicate that Pluto's atmosphere has actually been warming slightly.<br/><br/>Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve this apparent paradox?
✓ Correct answer: E. Planets tend to retain more heat as their surfaces become darker.
If Pluto is warming slightly, there must be something that enables it to retain its heat despite the fact that it is moving away from its primary heat source, the sun. Since we can reasonably infer that a planet moving away from the sun will darken, choice E provides the solution to the apparent paradox.<br/><br/>Choice A is incorrect because it actually discounts a possible explanation to the mystery. If Pluto's core did generate heat, that might explain the warming. A comparison of Pluto's temperature with that of other planets, choice B, and the fate of Pluto's trajectory, choice C, tell us nothing about why Pluto is warming despite its increasing distance from the sun.<br/><br/>Choice D is incorrect because a comparison between Pluto and Earth is irrelevant to the mystery at hand.
Q13Many home computer hard disk drives have files containing the personal information of the computer's owner. Deleting these files prevents them from being accessed by normal means, but does not necessarily eliminate the data they contain. SaniComp software, however, "sanitizes" hard drives by completely eliminating data from them. So Liam, who just sold his computer to Francie, should use SaniComp before delivering it to her. The soundness of the recommendation above depends on each of the following assumptions EXCEPT:
✓ Correct answer: A. Francie is interested in Liam's personal information.
There are four significant gaps in this argument (represented by the four wrong choices in this EXCEPT question), but choice C is not one of them. The recommendation that Liam "sanitize" his computer does not rely on Francie's interest in his personal information. First of all, Francie may not be the only one to use this computer. Moreover, she may even sell it herself later on to someone else. If, as the author suggests, without using SaniComp Liam's info will live forever on this computer, it may remain a good idea for him to "sanitize" it whether or not Francie has any particular interest in the details of his life, since nothing ensures that that info won't become available to others.<br/><br/>So choice C need not be assumed in order to ensure the soundness of the author's advice. All of the other choices must be assumed here, because if we negate any one of them, the recommendation to sanitize seems superfluous. Beginning with the most basic thing, Liam must have used his computer in the first place in order for sanitizing to make any sense. If Liam's computer is still in the box, untouched, and he decides to sell it to Francie, there would be no sensitive information to delete. So the author must assume that Liam's computer is used, not new choice D. One step removed from this is the requirement that Liam's computer, assuming he has used it, contains some of his personal information, choice E. The author states that "many" computers contain files with personal info, but if Liam's doesn't, then there's no need to sanitize. Assuming Liam has used his computer and that it has some of his personal information on it, it also must be assumed that he cares to protect the privacy of such information, choice A. Perhaps most people would care, but it's possible that Liam doesn't, in which case sanitizing would be pointless. <br/><br/>Finally, assuming Liam's computer does contain his personal information that he wishes to protect, there would still be no evident reason to sanitize the computer if the information cannot be retrieved. Therefore, choice B must also be assumed in order to conclude that the author's recommendation is sound.
Q14Manny has soccer practice until 7 PM and then ballet until 9 PM. Clearly Manny will still have time to complete his homework so long as he can stay awake until 10 PM.<br/><br/>Which of the following is an assumption made by the above passage?
✓ Correct answer: A. Manny has one hour or less of homework.
The passage assumes that Manny has one hour or less of homework. If Many has time to complete his homework, but is only free from 9 PM until 10 PM, then he must have one hour or less of homework.
Q15Journalist: To reconcile the need for profits sufficient to support new drug research with the moral imperative to provide medicines to those who most need them but cannot afford them, some pharmaceutical companies feel justified in selling a drug in rich nations at one price and in poor nations at a much lower price. But this practice is unjustified. A nation with a low average income may still have a substantial middle class better able to pay for new drugs than are many of the poorer citizens of an overall wealthier nation.<br/><br/>Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the journalist’s reasoning?
✓ Correct answer: A. Whether one deserves special consideration depends on one’s needs rather than on characteristics of the society to which one belongs.
The journalist states that pharmaceutical companies have both a need for profits to support future research and a moral obligation to provide medicines to those who most need them and cannot afford them. In order to balance these requirements, they have adopted a practice of selling drugs at lower prices in poorer countries. The journalist’s conclusion is that this practice is unjustified. To support this claim, the journalist points out that different individuals in the same nation have differing abilities to pay, but this consideration does not, by itself, establish that the pharmaceutical company’s policy is unjustified. The question asks you to choose the principle that would most help to justify the journalist’s reasoning.<br/><br/>The principle stated in response (C) connects the question of whether special consideration is deserved to personal, rather than societal, needs. The pharmaceutical companies’ practice provides special consideration based on the characteristics of one’s society, and not based on one’s personal needs. As a result, according to this principle, the practice tends to deny special consideration to some who deserve it (the poorer citizens of wealthier nations), while giving special consideration to some who do not deserve it (the middle class citizens of poorer nations). In this way the practice is failing to meet the pharmaceutical companies’ obligation to provide special consideration for those who most need the drugs and cannot afford them, and, in giving undeserved special consideration, failing to generate income that could have been used to support new drug research. The principle in (C) thereby provides strong support for the journalist’s reasoning that the pharmaceutical companies’ practice is unjustified. Thus, (C) is the correct response.<br/><br/>The principle stated in response (A) applies to balancing the consideration deserved by ill people and healthy people. However, the pharmaceutical companies’ practice, and the journalist’s argument against that practice, concerns only ill people (that is, people who need drugs). As a result, response (A) is not relevant to the journalist’s reasoning.<br/><br/>The principle stated in (B) requires that wealthy institutions use some of their resources to aid those in need. This tends to affirm the pharmaceutical companies’ moral imperative to provide medicines to those who need them but cannot afford them. However, this principle gives no support to the journalist’s reasoning, which contends that the pharmaceutical companies’ pricing policy is not justified by this moral imperative.<br/><br/>The principle stated in (D), that people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health care than those in poorer nations, is a principle that tends to support the companies’ practice, because the companies’ practice is one that tends to lessen the health care disparities between wealthy and poorer nations. For this reason, (D) actually runs counter to the journalist’s reasoning.<br/><br/>The principle stated in (E) concerns whether an unequal distribution of health care or an unequal distribution of wealth is more unfair. However, this is a different issue than the one the journalist is addressing. Response (E) is thus not relevant to the journalist’s reasoning.<br/><br/>This was an easy question, based on the number of test takers who answered it correctly when it appeared on the LSAT.
Q16Jane: Nowadays 3D effects are seen as a distracting gimmick that most people no longer appreciate. The recent trend toward producing more 3D movies is not a good financial strategy for movie studios. In fact, I and my friends refuse to attend movies in 3D, and I know many others that feel the same way.<br/><br/>Bill: But you fail to take into account the fact that 3D ticket prices are higher than 2D ticket prices. The difference in price offsets the lower attendance at 3D movies. I, for one, appreciate having the choice between 2D and 3D films.<br/><br/>The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Jane and Bill disagree about whether
✓ Correct answer: A. it is financially wise for movie studios to continue producing movies in 3D
Bill’s rebuttal to Jane’s argument is that studios can make up for the lower attendance at 3D films through increased ticket prices. Hence, he does not agree with Jane that producing 3D movies “is not a good financial strategy for movie studios.” The remaining answer choices do not contain statements about which Jane and Bill necessarily disagree, even though the topics may have been mentioned in the dialogue.
Q17Scientist: Much of the marine life has been dying along the coastline for decades. The introduction of foreign fish began thirty years ago, with a small aquaculture development in the southern part of the region. Returning the marine environment to the way it was a century ago will allow a more diverse amount of species to flourish in these waters.<br/><br/>Which of the following is a necessary assumption of the scientist’s argument?
✓ Correct answer: B. The foreign fish species have been harming a number of native, local marine species.
The passage's main argument is that eliminating the foreign fish species will allow native fish species to flourish in a manner that they used to be able to before the foreign fish were introduced. The assumption that the foreign fish are actually hurting the native fish is necessary for the passage's argument to make logical sense.
Q18Adapted from <em>Frankenstein</em> by Mary Shelley (1818)<br/><br/>The being finished speaking and fixed his looks upon me in the expectation of a reply. But I was bewildered, perplexed, and unable to arrange my ideas sufficiently to understand the full extent of his proposition. He continued, "You must create a female for me with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being. This you alone can do, and I demand it of you as a right which you must not refuse to concede."<br/><br/>The latter part of his tale had kindled anew in me the anger that had died away while he narrated his peaceful life among the cottagers, and as he said this I could no longer suppress the rage that burned within me.<br/><br/>"I do refuse it," I replied; "and no torture shall ever extort a consent from me. You may render me the most miserable of men, but you shall never make me base in my own eyes. Shall I create another like yourself, whose joint wickedness might desolate the world. Begone!"<br/><br/>"You are in the wrong," replied the fiend; "and instead of threatening, I am content to reason with you. I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind? Let man live with me in the interchange of kindness, and instead of injury I would bestow every benefit upon him with tears of gratitude at his acceptance. But that cannot be . . . Yet mine shall not be the submission of abject slavery. I will revenge my injuries; if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear, and chiefly towards you my arch-enemy. Have a care; I will work at your destruction, nor finish until I desolate your heart, so that you shall curse the hour of your birth."<br/><br/>A fiendish rage animated him as he said this; his face was wrinkled into contortions too horrible for human eyes to behold; but presently he calmed himself and proceeded—<br/><br/>"I intended to reason. What I ask of you is reasonable and moderate; I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself. Our lives will not be happy, but they will be harmless and free from the misery I now feel. Oh! My creator, make me happy; let me feel gratitude towards you for one benefit!”<br/><br/>I was moved. I shuddered when I thought of the possible consequences of my consent, but I felt that there was some justice in his argument. His tale and the feelings he now expressed proved him to be a creature of fine sensations, and did I not as his maker owe him all the portion of happiness that it was in my power to bestow? He saw my change of feeling and continued,<br/><br/>"If you consent, neither you nor any other human being shall ever see us again; I will go to the vast wilds of South America. We shall make our bed of dried leaves; the sun will shine on us as on man and will ripen our food, acorns and berries. The picture I present to you is peaceful and human, and you must feel that you could deny it only in the wantonness of power and cruelty. Pitiless as you have been towards me, I now see compassion in your eyes; let me seize the favorable moment and persuade you to promise what I so ardently desire."<br/><br/>The author most likely intended the final paragraph to show what?
✓ Correct answer: C. The persuasiveness of the fiend
We can tell from the fiend's recognition and use of the change in the narrator's feelings that the paragraph is mainly showing how persuasive the fiend can be. For this reason, we cannot say if the things said are the fiend's true intentions. It is important here to pick up on the subtle notions presented by the author, such as “let me seize the favorable moment and persuade you to promise what I so ardently desire.” Here, the fiend himself admits that he is attempting to be persuasive.
Q19Educator: “Children will not excel at learning other languages unless they are exposed to those languages at a very young age. Grace had a babysitter who spoke Spanish to her as a young child, so she will grow up to be fluent in Spanish.”<br/><br/>Which of the following passages most closely parallels the flawed reasoning exhibited above?
✓ Correct answer: D. Flowers cannot grow well unless they are watered at least three times a week. Grace watered her flowers four times a week, so her flowers will grow well.
The passage that most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the original passage is answer B. In the original passage, the educator falsely assumes that because an event is necessary for another event to occur, then the first event occurring is sufficient for the second to occur. In other words, if the requirement that Grace is exposed to Spanish has been met, then she will learn Spanish. <br/><br/>Answer B follows the same logic. Watering the flowers three or more times each week only establishes one of the conditions necessary for the flowers to grow well; it does not guarantee that they will.
Q20Adapted from <em>Mysticism, Logic, and Other Essays</em> by Bertrand Russell (1917)<br/><br/>When we try to ascertain the motives which have led men to the investigation of philosophical questions, we find that, broadly speaking, they can be divided into two groups, often antagonistic, and leading to very divergent systems. These two groups of motives are, on the one hand, those derived from religion and ethics, and, on the other hand, those derived from science. Plato, Spinoza, and Hegel may be taken as typical of the philosophers whose interests are mainly religious and ethical, while Leibniz, Locke, and Hume may be taken as representatives of the scientific wing. In Aristotle, Descartes, Berkeley, and Kant we find both groups of motives strongly present.<br/><br/>Herbert Spencer, in whose honor we are assembled today, would naturally be classed among scientific philosophers; it was mainly from science that he drew his data, his formulation of problems, and his conception of method. But his strong religious sense is obvious in much of his writing, and his ethical preoccupations are what make him value the conception of evolution—that conception in which, as a whole generation has believed, science and morals are to be united in fruitful and indissoluble marriage.<br/><br/>It is my belief that the ethical and religious motives, in spite of the splendidly imaginative systems to which they have given rise, have been, on the whole, a hindrance to the progress of philosophy, and ought now to be consciously thrust aside by those who wish to discover philosophical truth. Science, originally, was entangled in similar motives, and was thereby hindered in its advances. It is, I maintain, from science, rather than from ethics and religion, that philosophy should draw its inspiration.<br/><br/>But there are two different ways in which a philosophy may seek to base itself upon science. It may emphasize the most general results of science, and seek to give even greater generality and unity to these results. Or it may study the methods of science, and seek to apply these methods, with the necessary adaptations, to its own peculiar province. Much philosophy inspired by science has gone astray through preoccupation with the results momentarily supposed to have been achieved. It is not results, but methods that can be transferred with profit from the sphere of the special sciences to the sphere of philosophy. What I wish to bring to your notice is the possibility and importance of applying to philosophical problems certain broad principles of method which have been found successful in the study of scientific questions.<br/><br/>The opposition between a philosophy guided by scientific method and a philosophy dominated by religious and ethical ideas may be illustrated by two notions which are very prevalent in the works of philosophers, namely the notion of the universe, and the notion of good and evil. A philosopher is expected to tell us something about the nature of the universe as a whole, and to give grounds for either optimism or pessimism. Both these expectations seem to me mistaken. I believe the conception of "the universe" to be, as its etymology indicates, a mere relic of pre-Copernican astronomy, and I believe the question of optimism and pessimism to be one which the philosopher will regard as outside his scope, except, possibly, to the extent of maintaining that it is insoluble.<br/><br/>This essay could best be titled <code>________</code>.
✓ Correct answer: E. "On the Positive Applications of Scientific Method to Philosophy"
When asked to determine the best title for an essay, you are mostly being asked if you understand the primary motivation and thesis of the passage. Many of these answer choices are part of the argument, but only one represents an accurate portrayal of the thesis. The following answer choices are deficient: "On Results-Based and Method-Based Scientific Philosophical Inquiry" is incorrect because it does not convey the author's support of method-based scientific philosophical inquiry whereas another the correct answer does; “In Praise of Herbert Spencer” is incorrect because the author only mentions Spencer in passing, and indeed is as much critical (although in a veiled manner) as he is effusive with praise; “In Defense of Scientific Inquiry and Exploration” is incorrect because it covers only part of the argument and does not transcend the whole of the essay; and “On the Overwhelming Influence of Religion on the Development of Philosophical Thought” is incorrect because this is discussed only in passing to reinforce part of the author’s argument against religious motivations. The best answer choice is “On the Positive Applications of Scientific Method to Philosophy” because it captures the primary motivation of the author, to urge his audience to embrace scientific method in their pursuit of philosophical truth.
Use the free LSAT Exam Prep 2026 Test sample, download the PDF, then unlock web-based timed mock exams for a full exam rehearsal.
Theory