Common Traps on the LSAT (Law School Admission Test)

The LSAT consists of five 35-minute sections: one Reading Comprehension, one Analytical Reasoning (Logic Games), and two Logical Reasoning sections (plus an unscored variable section and a writing sample). The test is 100% about reasoning, not prior knowledge. The traps here are often subtle—misreading quantifiers in logic, failing to diagram games correctly, and falling for attractive but wrong answer choices in arguments.

Section A: Logical Reasoning

Trap 1: The "Necessary vs Sufficient" Confusion

• The Objective: Identify the assumption, flaw, or inference in an argument.

• The Trap: You confuse a necessary condition (something that must be true) with a sufficient condition (something that guarantees the result). The LSAT frequently tests this distinction, and mixing them up leads to wrong answers in assumption, flaw, and inference questions .

• Why It Works: In everyday language, we use "if" loosely. The LSAT is precise. Students who haven't drilled this distinction fall for answer choices that state a sufficient condition when the argument requires a necessary one (or vice versa) .

• The Fix: Memorize the formal logic indicators:

  • Sufficient (triggers): if, all, any, every, whenever, the only (reversed), etc.

  • Necessary (required): only, only if, must, requires, depends on, necessary, etc.
    Practice translating sentences into "If [sufficient], then [necessary]" format .

• Example:

  • Argument: "If you study hard, you will pass the test. Therefore, if you pass the test, you studied hard."

  • Trap: Thinking this is valid.

  • Correct: It's a fallacy (affirming the consequent). Studying hard is sufficient but not necessary. You could pass without studying.

Trap 2: The "Quantifier" Slip (Some, Most, All, None)

• The Objective: Draw valid inferences from statements involving quantifiers.

• The Trap: You assume that "some A are B" implies "some A are not B" (it doesn't). You think "most A are B" and "most A are C" means some B are C (it doesn't follow).

• Why It Works: In casual speech, we often imply more than the words say. The LSAT tests the precise logical meaning .

• The Fix: Memorize the logical rules for quantifiers:

  • "Some" means "at least one." It does NOT imply "some are not."

  • "Most" means "more than half." It does NOT imply "all" or "most of the others."

  • "All" and "none" are the only ones that allow certainty.

  • "Some A are B" and "Some B are C" does NOT imply "Some A are C" (they could be different B's).

• Example:

  • Statements: "All lawyers are educated. Some educated people are wealthy."

  • Invalid Inference: "Some lawyers are wealthy." (The educated wealthy people might not be lawyers.)

  • Valid Inference: "Some educated people are lawyers." (From "all lawyers are educated," we know the lawyer group is a subset of educated people.)

Trap 3: The "Extreme Language" Trap (Strengthen/Weaken Questions)

• The Objective: Choose the answer that most strengthens or weakens an argument.

• The Trap: You pick an answer with extreme words like "never," "always," "all," or "none" because it seems powerful. But extreme statements are often too strong to be supported and are rarely correct .

• Why It Works: Students think a stronger claim makes for stronger support. But in logic, an extreme claim is harder to prove and more likely to be false or irrelevant .

• The Fix: Look for answers that are moderate and directly relevant . The correct answer often closes a small but critical gap, not an extreme one .

• Example:

  • Argument: "Our law school should require a course in ethics because it will make graduates more ethical lawyers."

  • Trap Strengthener: "All lawyers who take ethics courses become completely ethical." (Too extreme, likely false.)

  • Correct Strengthener: "Studies show that law students who take ethics courses are more likely to recognize ethical dilemmas in practice." (Moderate, directly supports the link.)

Trap 4: The "Mismatch" Trap (Flaw Questions)

• The Objective: Identify the flaw in the argument's reasoning.

• The Trap: You choose an answer that describes a flaw that sounds logical but doesn't actually match what the argument did .

• Why It Works: Flaw question answer choices often use standard flaw names (circular reasoning, ad hominem, false analogy). Students pick the familiar term without checking if it fits .

• The Fix: First, articulate the flaw in your own words based on the argument. Then match it to the answer choices. Don't let the jargon drive your thinking .

• Example:

  • Argument: "I asked ten people in my building, and they all support the new law. Therefore, the majority of citizens support it."

  • Flaw: Sample is not representative (biased sample).

  • Trap Answer: "The argument uses a circular reasoning." (No, it's not circular.)

  • Correct Answer: "The argument generalizes from a sample that may not be representative of the population." (Matches.)

Trap 5: The "Conclusion" Misidentification (Main Point Questions)

• The Objective: Identify the main conclusion of the argument.

• The Trap: You pick a subsidiary conclusion or a premise that sounds important, missing the ultimate point the author is trying to prove .

• Why It Works: Arguments often have multiple claims. Students grab the first strong claim they see .

• The Fix: Look for indicator words: "therefore," "thus," "hence," "consequently," "so," "as a result." The main conclusion is often the last claim before or after these words. Ask: "What is the author trying to convince me of?" .

• Example:

  • Argument: "The death penalty is expensive. It also risks executing innocent people. Therefore, it should be abolished. Furthermore, it does not deter crime."

  • Trap: Picking "The death penalty is expensive" (a premise) or "It does not deter crime" (another premise).

  • Correct: "It should be abolished." (That's the main conclusion.)

Section B: Analytical Reasoning (Logic Games)

Trap 6: The "Rule Overload" Trap

• The Objective: Set up a logic game correctly and efficiently.

• The Trap: You read all the rules, feel overwhelmed, and start drawing without a clear diagram strategy. The diagram becomes messy, incomplete, or unusable .

• Why It Works: Time pressure makes you want to start anywhere. But a poor setup guarantees missed deductions and wasted time later .

• The Fix: Spend the first 2-3 minutes understanding the game type and choosing the right diagram framework. Use a consistent system: sequencing games (number line), grouping games (grid or boxes), matching games (tables), etc. Rewrite rules in symbolic form .

• Example:

  • Game: Seven books are arranged on a shelf from left to right. Conditions: "F is to the left of G" → draw F — G with space between. "H is immediately before K" → draw [H K] as a block. "M cannot be first or last" → note M ≠ 1, M ≠ 7.

  • Trap: Writing rules in English only, not symbolically, and missing the deduction that the HK block occupies two consecutive spots.

Trap 7: The "Missed Deduction" Trap

• The Objective: Answer questions quickly by leveraging upfront inferences.

• The Trap: You jump straight to the questions without spending time to make initial deductions from the rules. You end up brute-forcing each question individually, wasting precious minutes .

• Why It Works: Students think "I'll figure it out as I go." But most logic games have key deductions that unlock multiple questions .

• The Fix: After writing the rules, pause for 30-60 seconds to look for inferences:

  • Which entities are fixed?

  • Which positions are impossible for certain entities?

  • Are there blocks or sequences that limit possibilities?

  • Can you create templates or scenarios?

• Example:

  • Game: 6 people seated in a circle. A is next to B. C is opposite D. E is not next to F.

  • Deduction: "Opposite" fixes two positions. "Next to" creates adjacency. You might be able to draw two possible arrangements (templates) that cover all possibilities, allowing you to answer questions quickly.

Trap 8: The "If" Question Trap (Conditional Questions)

• The Objective: Answer a question that introduces a new condition (e.g., "If X is in position 3, which of the following must be true?")

• The Trap: You treat the new condition as just another constraint and try to apply it to your existing diagram without redrawing or creating a new, limited scenario .

• Why It Works: Students try to save time by not redrawing. But the new condition may drastically alter the possibilities, and using the old diagram leads to missed constraints .

• The Fix: For every "if" question, draw a new mini-diagram incorporating the new condition. Deduce its consequences before looking at the answer choices .

• Example:

  • Game: Seven books sequenced. Original diagram has flexible spots. New condition: "F is in position 4." Draw a fresh number line, put F at 4, then apply all original rules to see what becomes fixed.

Trap 9: The "Must Be True vs Could Be True" Confusion

• The Objective: Choose the correct answer based on the required certainty level.

• The Trap: You pick an answer that is possible ("could be true") when the question asks for what "must be true." Or you eliminate something that is not necessarily false .

• Why It Works: Under time pressure, students don't carefully read the question stem. They see an answer that fits one scenario and assume it's correct .

• The Fix: Circle the question type: Must be True (true in every valid scenario) vs Could be True (true in at least one valid scenario) vs Cannot be True (false in all scenarios). Test borderline answers against multiple possible arrangements .

• Example:

  • In a game, if you have two possible arrangements, an answer that is true in one but false in the other is could be true, not must be true. The correct "must be true" answer must hold in both.

Section C: Reading Comprehension

Trap 10: The "Outside Knowledge" Trap

• The Objective: Answer a question based on the passage.

• The Trap: You pick an answer that is true in general (based on your knowledge) but is not supported by the passage .

• Why It Works: We naturally use our background knowledge to understand text. But the LSAT tests only what the passage says .

• The Fix: Pretend you know nothing about the topic except what is in the passage. For every answer choice, ask: "Can I point to a sentence or clear implication in the passage that supports this?" If not, eliminate it .

• Example:

  • Passage: "Some legal scholars argue that jury nullification undermines the rule of law."

  • Question: "Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?"

  • Trap Answer: "Jury nullification is unconstitutional." (You might know this, but the passage doesn't say it.)

  • Correct Answer: "At least some legal scholars have concerns about jury nullification." (Directly supported.)

Trap 11: The "Detail Overload" Trap

• The Objective: Answer detail questions accurately.

• The Trap: You try to memorize every detail while reading, getting bogged down and missing the main structure .

• Why It Works: Students think they need to remember everything to answer questions. But the LSAT allows you to return to the passage .

• The Fix: Read for the main idea, structure, and tone . Note where details are located (paragraph 1, line 15, etc.) but don't memorize them. Use the "search and destroy" method for detail questions: find the relevant text, then answer .

• Example:

  • First read: "Paragraph 1 introduces a theory. Paragraph 2 gives supporting evidence. Paragraph 3 presents a counterargument."

  • Detail question: "According to the author, what evidence supports the theory?" You know it's in paragraph 2. Scan there for the answer.

Trap 12: The "Comparative Reading" Source Confusion

• The Objective: Answer questions about two paired passages.

• The Trap: You mix up which author said what. You attribute Passage A's view to Passage B, or you miss the point of agreement/disagreement .

• Why It Works: Two passages on similar topics blur together. Under time pressure, students lose track of which is which .

• The Fix: Before reading, note the author of each passage (often "Passage A" and "Passage B"). As you read, jot down one-word summaries of each author's main point. For questions, explicitly check: "Is this about A, B, or both?" .

• Example:

  • Passage A: Supports tort reform.

  • Passage B: Opposes tort reform.

  • Question: "Both authors would likely agree with which statement?"

  • Trap: Picking a statement that supports one side.

  • Correct: Finding a neutral statement they both accept (e.g., "The legal system is complex.").

Section D: General Test-Taking Strategy

Trap 13: The "Perfectionism" Trap

• The Objective: Maximize your score.

• The Trap: You spend too much time on a hard question, determined to get it right, and run out of time for several easier questions later .

• Why It Works: Students are trained to aim for 100% in school. The LSAT rewards completion and accuracy on questions you can do, not perfection on every question .

• The Fix: Develop a skip strategy . If you're stuck on a Logical Reasoning question for more than 90 seconds, or a Logic Game question for more than 2 minutes, guess and move on. You can return if time permits. The goal is to see all questions .

• Example:

  • In a Logic Game, you're stuck on question 3 of 6. You've spent 3 minutes. Trap: Keep grinding, get it right, but then have 2 minutes for the last 3 questions.

  • Fix: Guess, move on. If you have time after finishing the other questions, come back.

Trap 14: The "Answer Changing" Doubt Trap

• The Objective: Select the correct answer confidently.

• The Trap: You second-guess yourself and change answers frequently, often from right to wrong .

• Why It Works: Anxiety creates doubt. Students think their first instinct is often wrong, but LSAT research shows that first instincts are correct more often than not .

• The Fix: Only change an answer if you have a clear, logical reason —you realized you misread the question, or you found explicit evidence in the passage. Do not change based on a "feeling" .

• Example:

  • You chose A initially. On review, it still seems correct. But B also looks tempting.

  • Trap: Switch to B because you overthought.

  • Fix: Stick with A unless you can articulate exactly why B is better and A is wrong.

Trap 15: The "Pacing" Panic Trap

• The Objective: Complete each section within 35 minutes.

• The Trap: You constantly check the clock, panicking if you're behind, which distracts you and slows you further .

• Why It Works: The time limit is strict. Students obsess over it, creating a feedback loop of anxiety .

• The Fix: Set benchmarks . For Logical Reasoning (25-26 questions), aim to be at question 10 by minute 15, question 20 by minute 25. For Reading Comp (4 passages, 26-28 questions), aim to finish 3 passages by minute 25. Use these as guides, not strict rules. Practice until pacing is internalized .

• Example:

  • At minute 15 in LR, you're at question 8. Don't panic. Speed up slightly, but don't rush to the point of errors.