# LSAT Logical Reasoning Prep

If you want to enter the field of law and become a lawyer, you will need to attend law school and eventually take and pass the LSAT exam. The LSAT or the Law School Admission Test is a half-day test that is required to enter law school. If you plan to take the LSAT exam, you should expect to spend up to seven hours to complete the exam.

How to Pass the LSAT

The LSAT exam consists of five sections of multiple-choice questions and each section must be completed within 35  minutes. The sections on the LSAT exam consists of:

• Analytical Reasoning
• Logical Reasoning
• Writing Section
• Variable Section

What to Expect on the LSAT

To prepare and successfully pass the LSAT exam to enter into law school, you will need to make sure that you practice and do well on your practice tests. A great way to get a head start on preparing for the LSAT exam is to take advantage of Mometrix’s free LSAT Logical Reasoning Practice. The LSAT Logical Reasoning Prep is similar to the concept and difficulty that you can find on the actual LSAT exam.

## Logical Reasoning

The LSAT Logical Reasoning assesses your ability to think critically, reason by analogy, draw well-supported conclusions, identify and apply rules or principles, and identify explanations. The Logical Reasoning section requires you to read a short passage. You will then be required to answer a question about the passage. You should read each section carefully and make sure that you understand the meaning of each part of the question. You should also answer each question on the basis of the information that is given.

Directions:

The questions in this section are based on the reasoning given in brief statements or passages. It is possible that for some questions there is more than one answer. However, you are to choose the best answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the question. You should not make assumptions that are by common sense standards implausible, superfluous, or incompatible with the passage.

Lito: The island of Kauai features a number of one-lane bridges that are potentially very dangerous. Kauai has recently seen a rise in the number of tourists visiting the island, and most tourists are not familiar with navigating the one-lane bridges. Over the last year, the number of car accidents has increased, and most of these accidents have occurred at the one-lane bridges. These bridges need to be widened to accommodate tourists and prevent future accidents.

Miteki: Kauai has a traditional commitment to environmental integrity. The one-lane bridges were installed to minimize the impact on the island environment. To widen the one-lane bridges could have a dangerous effect on the native plant and animal life.

As a response to Lito’s argument, Miteki’s comment is flawed because she

a. relies on faulty information to support her argument

b. uses circular reasoning to make her main points

c. focuses on a minor issue instead of a more important one

d. responds to a supporting point instead of a main point

e. fails to address the substance of Lito’s claim by making a secondary argument

Overview: This question records a conversation between Lito and Miteki, with Lito making an argument about an action she believes needs to be taken and Miteki responding to that argument. Specifically, Lito notes that the one-lane bridges on the island of Kauai have become dangerous due to the increase of tourist traffic and argues that the bridges should be widened. Miteki rebuts with a comment that Kauai is committed to protecting the plant and animal life on the island and that widening the bridges could endanger these plants and animals. The question asks the reader to identify the flaw in Miteki’s response.

E: In her response, Miteki ignores the substance of Lito’s argument – the potential danger from the one-lane bridges and the need to widen them – and instead tries to redirect the conversation toward a related but different topic, specifically the environmental impact of widening the bridges. Thus, answer choice (E) correctly evaluates the flaw in Miteki’s response: she fails to address the core of Lito’s comments and instead develops a secondary argument.

A: The conversation does not discuss the accuracy of the information in either Lito’s argument or Miteki’s, so there is no way to know whether Miteki is relying on faulty information. Answer choice (A) may be eliminated immediately.

B: Although Miteki’s response does indeed fail to address the substance of Lito’s argument, her mistake is not that of circular reasoning, so answer choice (B) may also be eliminated immediately.

C: There is no suggestion in the conversation that either topic is more important than the other, so the judgment that the substance of Miteki’s response is less important than Lito’s cannot be inferred from the conversation. Moreover, such a judgment does not address the flaw in Miteki’s reasoning, so answer choice (C) cannot be correct.

D: Miteki responds to Lito by picking up on one element of his argument – the one-lane bridges – and then developing an unrelated argument of her own. She does not, however, develop any of Lito’s supporting claims (i.e., that the number of accidents has increased, that there are more tourists in Kauai), so answer choice (D) is incorrect.