2.11 - Understand Your Task

One of the most common mistakes I see students make is misunderstanding what the question asks them to do. If you catch yourself saying, "I just don't understand what I'm supposed to do on this question," this guide's for you.

This lesson will cover:

• Each question type, by section
• What each question wants us to solve for

Forewarning, there's a lot in here, so feel free to jump around to the bits you're struggling with the most.

Our Tasks on Logical Reasoning

Here's a quick rundown of logical reasoning question types, how they present on the test, and what they want us to do.

Side note: Because they tend to have more mechanical attack strategies than the other sections, we'll cover LR question types more in-depth in a later lesson.

Main Conclusion

On Main Conclusion questions, your job is to spot the argument's overall conclusion.

Main Conclusions are often formatted like this:

• Which one of the following most accurately expresses the argument's conclusion?
• The conclusion drawn in Steve's argument is that

Usually, the passage will have only one conclusion. But more challenging Main Conclusion questions will throw in an intermediate conclusion or two to test your chops.

Must Be True

Must Be True questions (sometimes called entailments, implications, or shortened "MBT") expect us to figure out what else must be the case based on the record.

Must Be Trues often look like this:

• Which one of the following can be properly inferred?
• If the columnist's statements are true, then which one of the following must also be true?
• If the statements are true, which one of the following cannot be true?

Each of these phrasings asks us to do the same thing: determine which answer choice must also be the case based on the information provided.

Note: It's pretty rare for a Must Be True question's passage to contain an argument. Typically, you'll be presented with a set of related facts and then have to discern what else must be the case.

Most Strongly Supported

Most Strongly Supported questions, sometimes abbreviated "MSS", ask us to find the answer choice with the most support from the passage.

They often look like this:

• The author's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
• Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by the author's claims?

Similar to Must Be True questions, the majority of Most Strongly Supported questions will not reference an argument, just a set of facts. You may be asked to complete an argument, but you won't necessarily have to spot a conclusion in order to properly understand the passage.

On the other hand, Most Strongly Supported questions differ from Must Be Trues in that the correct answer choice doesn't have to be absolutely certain, just supported by the record.

Agree / Disagree

Agree / Disagree questions, sometimes called "Dispute" questions, ask us to identify the point at issue between speakers.

They typically look like this:

• Jack and Jill disagree over whether
• Tom and Jerry disagree with each other about which one of the following?
• The dialogue provides the most support that Travis and Taylor agree that

You'll get slight variations on these phrasings, but they all ask us to identify the central point at issue between (usually two) speakers.

Read the question carefully so you know whether to look for a point of agreement or disagreement.

Reasoning

Reasoning questions, sometimes called "Technique" questions, ask us to interpret how an argument proceeds—the method it uses to make its claim.

They usually look something like this:

• The argument proceeds by
• Paul responds to Chris's argument using which one of the following techniques?
• Which one of the following is a technique used in the argument?

Remember, your job here is to figure out the way the argument proceeds, not whether it's good or bad. That said, understanding the argument's validity will help you make stronger predictions on these questions.

Role

Role questions ask us to identify the part played by a specific clause or sentence in the argument.

They're usually phrased like this:

• The claim that Jerry must be Ben's brother plays which of the following roles in the argument?
• Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that Mel and Rob have been friends since childhood?

These questions are similar to Method of Reasoning questions in that you must identify how a specific piece fits into the larger puzzle.

But Role questions are more about anatomy than mechanics. You're meant to identify what part the specified claim plays in the grand scheme of things, not how the argument proceeds.

Principle

Principle questions task us with one of two things based on whether the passage is an argument or not.

If the passage is an argument, we must identify the answer choice that underlies or justifies the argument's reasoning.

If it's not an argument, we need to look for the answer choice demonstrated in the passage.

They tend to look like this:

• Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the argument's reasoning?
• The pundit's reasoning most closely conforms to which of the following principles?
• The scenario described conforms most closely to which one of the following?

Parallel Reasoning

On to everyone's favorite: Parallel Reasoning questions (sometimes called "Matching Structure" or just "Parallel").

In my opinion, these questions get a bad rap. They're super predictable once you understand argument parts.

They're often phrased as follows:

• The pattern of reasoning in the argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?
• Which one of the following is most closely parallel in its reasoning to the argument presented?

Your job here is to find the same argument from the passage, rephrased. It's that simple.

Parallel Principle

I considered axing this question type altogether because they're so similar to both Principle questions and Parallel Reasoning questions. But that's ultimately why I didn't—Parallel Principle's draw heavily from both.

Sometimes called "Matching Principle", these questions ask us to identify the principle that underpins the passage and then find a parallel example in the answer choices. It's equal parts Principle and Parallel.

They tend to look like this:

• Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle illustrated in the passage?
• The principle underlying the philosopher's argument is most similar to the principle underlying which one of the following?

We solve these questions by understanding the principle from the passage and identifying which answer choice matches it.

Flaw

My literal favorite: Flaw questions. Flaws were the last thing I truly mastered and are, in my opinion, the essence of the LSAT.

Flaws often look like this:

• The reasoning in the newspaper article's argument is flawed in that the argument
• The author's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
• The argument's reasoning is questionable in that the argument

Flaw questions ask us to identify the specific error in reasoning presented in the passage.

We have two hurdles to jump through to find the correct answer: (1) the correct answer choice must include something the argument actually did, and (2) this "something the argument did" must be the specific reason why the argument was flawed.

Wrong answer choices will commonly jump through only one of these hurdles. In other words, they'll articulate flaws the argument didn't commit or they'll mention something the argument did, but that wasn't the specific reason the argument was flawed.

Parallel Flaw

Parallel Flaw questions draw from both Flaws and Parallel Reasoning. Our job on these is to match up the flawed reasoning from the passage to an answer choice that makes the same mistake(s).

These questions are often phrased like this:

• The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?
• Which one of the following arguments contains flawed reasoning that is most parallel to that in the argument?
• Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its flawed reasoning to the argument?

Parallel Flaws are usually easy to identify. Like Flaw questions, the question itself reveals that the passage contains flawed reasoning.

But be careful. This question type can sometimes present like a Parallel Reasoning question. That is, without telling you that there was a flaw to begin with.

Necessary Assumption

Necessary Assumption questions (sometimes abbreviated "NA" or shortened to "Necessary") are all about finding what the argument's author must agree with. We touch on this question type in the Sufficient vs. Necessary lesson, but we'll go even deeper in its standalone lesson later on.

Necessary Assumptions tend to ask us what is required by the argument or what it depends on. Here are some examples:

• Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
• The argument relies on assuming which one of the following?
• Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Requires... depends... relies on... these terms all describe necessity. Look for terms like these to differentiate between necessary and sufficient assumptions.

Bottom line? The conclusion depends on the correct answer choice—without the correct answer, the conclusion has no shot at being true.

Sufficient Assumption

Often shortened to "SA" or just "Sufficient", Sufficient Assumption questions task us with finding an assumption that guarantees the argument's conclusion.

One easy way to differentiate these questions from Necessary Assumptions is to look for the word "if" in the question. Here are some examples:

• The conclusion drawn in the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
• Anna's conclusion can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
• Which of the following, if true, would allow the critic's conclusion to be logically drawn?

The best thing about Sufficient Assumptions is that they're always predictable.

The argument will present some evidence and a conclusion, and there will be a clear gap separating them. You must completely fill that gap with an assumption. If you can identify the gap, you can identify what would completely fill it.

Strengthen

Strengthen questions tend to trip students up. Tons of things could strengthen most arguments, making these some of the tougher questions on the LSAT.

Our job is to find the answer choice that adds even a smidge of support to the current conclusion. Or, at bare minimum, that doesn't take support away from it (you might hear this called a defensive strengthener).

Strengthen questions tend to look like this:

• Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the artist's argument? 
• Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the mayor's conclusion?
• Each of the following, if true, supports the claim above except?

Any amount of additional support does the trick—from the tiniest sliver all the way up to a sufficient assumption (the strongest form of a strengthener, since it guarantees the conclusion).

Weaken

Like their Strengthen counterparts, Weaken questions tend to be pretty challenging, too. And for similar reasons.

You're basically working in the opposite direction of a strengthener. You need to take support away, making the conclusion less likely.

Here's what Weaken questions tend to look like:

• Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the physicist's claim?
• Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
• Each of the following, if true, weakens the claim above except?

From barely calling a premise into question to making the conclusion completely impossible, anything's game.

Evaluate

As the name suggests, Evaluate questions ask us to determine what else would be helpful to know in evaluating the author's argument.

Your job is to find an answer choice that would make it easier to know whether the argument wins or loses. This could be better understanding the supporting data or whether the proposed conclusion is even possible to begin with.

Evaluate questions usually look like this:

• The answer to which one of the following questions would most help in evaluating the argument?
• The answer to which one of the following questions would least help in evaluating the argument?
• Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?

Paradox

Paradox questions are all about solving the puzzle at hand.

You'll be presented with some seemingly incompatible facts or circumstances, and then asked to find the thing that best explains or resolves the discrepancy.

These questions tend to look like this:

• Which one of the, if true, most helps to explain the apparent paradox?
• Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?
• Which one of the following, if trues, does most to justify the archaeologists' apparently paradoxical position?

Paradox questions are often predictable, but not always. Going in armed with a well-founded prediction will help you more than not. But be prepared to consider some alternatives if you don't find your prediction in the answer choices.

Our Tasks on Reading Comprehension

Next, we're talking Reading Comp.

Like LR, I've mapped out a list of question types and what we're meant to do on each of them. Unlike LR, I won't be diving much deeper into how to solve them—they're often contextual and pretty much boil down to what must be the case based on the information in the passage.

Let's dive in.

Main Point

Main Point questions are the essence of RC. These questions ask us to summarize the passage's main ideas in a sentence or two.

Main Points are super predictable. Assuming you understood the passage, all you need to do is concisely summarize its most important ideas.

They look like this:

• Which of the following best describes the central idea of the passage?
• Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?
• Both passages seek to answer which one of the following questions?

Wrong answers on Main Point questions tend to be too broad or too narrow, so make sure your prediction brushes up against each big-picture idea without getting too caught up on any one point.

Stated

On Stated questions, our job's right in the name.

We're looking for something the passage said explicitly. Your answer choice will have direct evidence from the passage and you better be able to point to it.

These questions are often phrased as follows:

• Which one of the following does the passage list as a cause for earthquakes?
• The passage provides information sufficient to answer which one of the following questions?

Meaning

Meaning questions ask us to translate a word, phrase, or idea from the passage by finding its contextual definition in the answer choices.

For example, if a passage uses the word exhaust to describe the waste product of a vehicle, you wouldn't want to pick an answer choice that describes using something to its limits.

These questions tend to look like this:

• The author's use of the word "exhaust" refers primarily to
• The role of the word "exert" in passage B is most closely related to the role of which one of the following words in passage A?

Purpose of Reference

Purpose of Reference questions ask us to figure out why an author brought up a term or idea. In other words, it's our job to figure out the reference's function in the passage.

These references could be single sentences, the author quoting someone else, the introduction of seemingly contradictory data... it could truly be anything from the passage.

These questions often look like this:

• The primary purpose of the last sentence of the passage is to
• Which one of the following is the most likely reason the author mentions the works of Plato in the third paragraph?
• Both passages mention espionage primarily in order to

Agree / Disagree

I lump Agree and Disagree questions together on RC because they ask us to do essentially the same thing—determine whether the author (or group specified in the question) would reasonably agree or disagree with some idea.

In other words, these questions are all about understanding point of view. The author's constantly revealing their position, and their subjects' positions, both explicitly and subtly. If you're struggling to understand what the author—or one of their subjects—would agree with, you need to read more carefully.

These questions typically sound like this:

• The author would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements?
• The authors would be most likely to disagree over whether
• It can be inferred from the passage that critics of early entropy theory believe that

Most Strongly Supported

Like its LR counterpart, Most Strongly Supported questions are all about taking the record at face value and interpreting what else is likely to be true.

Be careful making large leaps and don't do extra work for the answer choices. The right answer is often, at most, a single step removed from the words on the page.

Here's what these questions tend to look like:

• Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information in the passage?
• The passage suggests that which one of the following is most likely to have come from the Harlem Renassiance?
• According to the passage, which of the following would be the most likely outcome of a lab test involving e. coli?

Attitude

Attitude questions ask us to infer how the author, or one of their subjects, feels about a given idea. In other words, it's all about point of view.

These questions closely resemble Agree / Disagree questions in that we need to understand perspective, even if we don't have to say what the author, or their subject, would agree or disagree with.

Here are some examples:

• Which of the following best describes the author's attitude towards African elephants?
• Which one of the following best describes the astrophysicists' attitude towards the Big Bang theory?
• Given the style and tone of each passage, which one of the following is most likely to correctly describe the expected audience of each passage?

New Context

One way to know you've understood what you've read is to properly apply ideas from the passage to new contexts. Cue New Context questions.

These questions asks us to apply something from the passage in a new, specific context. They might ask how the results from a lab study would play out in the field. Or to consider what idea Greek philosophers would hold dear that modern philosophers would reject. The possibilities are endless.

Bottom line: it's about proving you can apply what you've read.

Here are some examples:

• Which of the following experiments is most likely to produce data that would be most similar to the experiment detailed in the fourth paragraph?
• Which of the following adheres to the policy changes advocated for by the author of Passage B but not by the author of passage A?

Principle / Analogy

Principle / Analogy ask us to rephrase a central idea from the passage, often in the form of an analogy or underlying principle (hence the name).

Don't overthink it. The question will key in on some element of the passage, then you'll be presented with scenarios, one of which will accurately analogize the original idea.

Here's what these tend to look like:

• Which of the following is most analogous to Zahn's exploration of North American butterflies as it is described in the passage?
• As described in the first paragraph, the Baroque era musicians' views on melody are most analogous to which of the following?
• Based on their titles, the relationship between the documents in which of the following is most analogous to the relationship between passage A and passage B?

Strengthen

Similar to their LR counterparts, Strengthen questions on Reading Comp ask us to add evidence to a claim or theory from the passage—either the author's or one of their subjects'. The key difference from LR is that we won't necessarily be working with an argument.

We may be asked to add a new piece of evidence to the historical record or determine what would make a piece of legislation more likely to pass its legislature.

RC strengtheners tend to look like this:

• Which of the following, if true, would serve to strengthen Boon's hypothesis that Göbekli Tepe was not humanity's first significant metropolis?
• Which one of the following would, if true, most increase the likelihood that sea level rise is caused by rapid increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide?

Weaken

Like RC strengtheners, Weaken questions on RC largely resemble their LR counterparts.

The opposite of a strengthener, these questions want us to cast doubt on some idea from the passage.

RC weakeners tend to sound like this:

• Which of the following, if true, would most seriously challenge the Canadian legislature's position on modern maritime policy?
• Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on Narue's bluejay migration hypothesis?

Primary Purpose

Similar to, but not to be confused with, Main Point questions, Primary Purpose questions ask us to figure out why the author sat down to write this thing in the first place.

Think big picture. Correct answers tend to be less detailed than main points, but no less true of the passage in general.

These questions are often phrased something like this:

• The primary purpose of the passage is to
• The author's primary concern in the passage is to

Organization

Organization questions fall in the "purpose" family, too. But these questions are a little more anatomical.

They often ask us to identify something about the passage's structure or organization.

Here are some examples:

• Which one of the following most accurately describes the organization of the passage?
• Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the first and second paragraphs?
• Passage B, unlike passage A, seeks to advance its arguments by

Logic Games Tasks

Though I'm sad to see games going away this year, we have two tests left to capitalize on them.

Here's a breakdown of the types of questions you'll encounter on games and what each one wants you to do.

List

Sometimes called Full Solution questions, List questions are to Logic Games what Main Point questions are to RC passages. Most games will have one and it's often the game's first question.

List / Full Solution questions get their name based on what they want us to solve for: an acceptable list or solution to the puzzle.

The most common way to tackle these questions is to eliminate wrong answers one at a time as they break a particular rule. In other words, start with the first condition the game gives you, test the answer choices, and repeat. Process of elimination will leave you with an answer that abides by the rules. That's your answer.

List questions typically sound like this:

• Which one of the following is an acceptable set of appointments of patients to doctors?
• Which one of the following could be an accurate list of the ingredients in the order in which they are added to the casserole, from first to last?

Partial List

Though similar to List questions, Partial List questions are much less common.

These questions ask us to consider some portion of an entire solution to the game. You might be asked to evaluate what could constitute the female members of a male-female group or to determine who could go 2nd, 3rd, and 5th across a 6-person distribution.

I often see students struggle with these questions because they conflate them with List questions. Their eyes will glance over the question, they will mistakenly identify the question as a List instead of a Partial List, and they'll pick a wrong answer choice. As always, read carefully.

Partial List questions tend to look like this:

• Which one of the following is an acceptable partial list of male actors to performances?
• Which one of the following could be the list of the devices serviced on Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, respectively?

New Condition ("If" Questions)

New Conditions, commonly called "If" questions, are the most common questions on Logic Games.

These questions add a new condition—an "if" statement—to the existing puzzle. The new condition functions as a new rule, operating in addition to the game's existing constraints.

For example, let's say you had a game about conference attendees with a rule that stated player P must attend the conference immediately before or immediately after player K. This results in P and K always attending back-to-back in either PK or KP order.

This game might hit you with a New Condition question that begins something like "If P attends the conference before K...". For this question, that means P attends before K, even though other solutions allow K to attend before P.

These questions could be presented in virtually any format that incorporates an "if" statement, so I'm not going to draft out examples.

The key takeaway here is that you must apply the "if" statement presented in the question as if it's a new rule added into the game.

Inference

Inference questions ask us some variation of what could or must be true. There are 8 variations: could be true, could be false, must be true, must be false, and an except version of each. If you're struggling with this concept, check out our lesson on Could Be True vs. Must Be True.

When I encounter Inference questions, I pause before reading the answer choices to ask myself a clarifying question: "What would qualify as a correct answer and what will disqualify wrong answers?" I use this same method regardless of what variation of could or must be true the question poses.

For example, let's say the question reads: "Each of the following could be true except". I would pause and consider what qualifies as correct or incorrect. In this case, I'd need an exception to a could be true—something that can't be true or that must be false. In other words, I disqualify things that are possible in search of the one thing that will be impossible.

Aside from their could and must be true format, these questions sometimes get a little math-like on us. Here are some examples:

• What is the maximum number of different courses Patricia could attend?
• How many different orders are there in which the ingredients could be added to the stew?
• What is the minimum number of birds in the exhibit?

Note: Some New Condition questions layer in an inference—they provide an "if" statement, and then ask you to determine what could or must be true. As always, read carefully.

Completely Determined

Completely Determined questions ask us to set off a chain reaction resulting in a solution to the puzzle. That is, to find an answer choice that resolves all remaining flexibility and puts every piece in a specific place one baby step at a time.

The key to these questions is considering what flexibility must be resolved. Think back to the example using P and K above—if the same game included a Completely Determined question, we'd need the correct answer choice to resolve P and K's order with certainty.

Eliminating wrong answer choices is usually pretty easy on these questions.

Even when you have to test answer choices, if the one you're testing leaves any flexibility at all, it's wrong. We need to know where each game piece ends up with certainty.

They tend to look like this:

• The schedule of visits and who visits each site is completely determined if which one of the following is true?
• The pairings of dancers to instructors are completely determined if which one of the following is true?

Rule Adjustment

Rule Adjustment questions are pretty rare. They ask us to apply a variation of one of the game's original rules. They slightly adjust one of the game's conditions, but don't entirely replace the rule.

Rule Adjustments usually look like this:

• Suppose that, rather than three green socks, Bryan has four; all other conditions remaining in effect, which one of the following must be true?
• Suppose that, in addition to being an expert in German and English, Jill is also an expert in French; all other conditions remaining in effect, each of the following could be false except

Rule Substitution

What a fun one to end the lesson on—Rule Subs!

Rule Substitution questions are often considered some of the hardest questions on the entire test, and certainly the toughest on the Logic Games section. I even frequently hear other LSAT teachers recommend you skip them.

I don't disagree necessarily, but these questions are way easier than most students believe. In fact, you can often predict their answers.

Solving Rule Substitution questions is as simple as understanding the impact the rule you're asked to substitute had on the game, both in the abstract and in the aggregate.

To make my point, consider how they're often phrased:

• Which one of the following, if substituted for the condition that ... [input rule you're subbing here] ... would have the same effect on [the thing the game wants you to do]?

The two most important words in that question are same effect. Same effect means the exact same solutions as the original set of rules—no deviation.

Wrong answers will cause some form of deviation from the game's original solutions. They'll either be too lenient, allowing new potential solutions in addition to the originals, or they'll be too restrictive, causing former solutions to no longer solve the game. Even if you end up needing to test answer choices, this framework will make eliminating wrong ones a breeze.

Conversely, the right answer will perfectly reproduce the game's original solutions.

So, if you can articulate what the rule you're subbing did on its own, as well as how it interacted with the rest of the rules, you can often predict the answer.

---

Whew! You made it through. And now you know exactly what to do regardless of what the test throws your way. No more letting yourself off the hook for misunderstanding a question!

What would you add or remove from this lesson? How else can I help you make sense of each question type? Leave me a comment below so I can improve this course for you and future test-takers.

---

By now, you've heard me mention several times just how powerful prediction can be on the LSAT. In the next lesson, we'll walk through how to make solid predictions and when they're most useful.

See you there!