Free LSAT Ultimate Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Choose the response that fully answers the following: Every comic is a cynic. Henry is a funny guy.
- All cynics are comedians.
- All persons named Henry are cynics.
- All persons named Henry are cynics.
- Henry is a cynic. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Henry is a cynic.
The question presents two premises: 'Every comic is a cynic' and 'Henry is a funny guy.' To logically conclude 'Henry is a cynic,' there must be an unstated premise connecting 'funny guy' to 'comic.' Assuming that 'funny guy' in this context implies 'comic,' the argument becomes a classic syllogism: All comics are cynics; Henry is a comic; therefore, Henry is a cynic. This deduction directly leads to the correct answer.
Question 2: Choose the response that fully answers the following: Blue mountain lions are universal. Mountain lion spotted by Peter.
- The mountain lion was blue. (Correct answer)
- Peter is a mountain lion.
- All mountain lions are blue.
- Peter is a blue mountain lion.
Correct answer: The mountain lion was blue.
The first premise, 'Blue mountain lions are universal,' is an unusual phrasing but in the context of a logical reasoning question, it is best interpreted as 'All mountain lions are blue.' The second premise states that 'Mountain lion spotted by Peter.' If all mountain lions are blue, and Peter spotted a mountain lion, then the specific mountain lion Peter spotted must necessarily be blue. This is a direct application of the general rule to a specific instance.
Question 3: As ______ is to ________, astronomy is to astrology.
- security : burglary
- forensics : pseudo-science (Correct answer)
- physics : chemistry
- statute : codified law
Correct answer: forensics : pseudo-science
The relationship between 'astronomy' and 'astrology' is that astronomy is a legitimate scientific discipline, while astrology is a pseudo-science that superficially resembles astronomy but lacks scientific validity. Therefore, the analogy is science is to pseudo-science. Option B, 'forensics : pseudo-science,' perfectly matches this relationship, as forensics is a scientific field used in legal contexts, and pseudo-science represents a field that claims scientific rigor but does not possess it.
Question 4: A real estate purchase agreement was made between the buyer and the seller. The parcel of land in dispute is separated into two parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, according to county records. When the deal was finalized, the seller signed the deed transferring the land under the impression that she was only selling Parcel 1. However, she eventually learns that both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 were included in the legal description that was attached to the deed. Then the seller sues the buyer, alleging that after she signed the deed, the legal description was altered. Which of the following situations best compares to this situation?
- A homeless person trespassed on a landowner’s land and sustained an injury to his leg after encountering a visible and obvious hazard. The homeless person sued the landowner.
- An outdoor equipment merchant sold a brand-new tent to a camper. The tent's manufacturer guaranteed that it could be utilized in conditions as chilly as 30 degrees Fahrenheit, however the tent struggled to stay warm.
- A trespasser breaks into an abandoned farmhouse on rancher’s rural property in Nebraska and is injured when a rotted floorboard gives way. The trespasser then sues the rancher.
- A car dealer special ordered a new car from the factory according the buyer’s specifications, including 350 HP engine. After the car arrived and the dealer sold it to the buyer, buyer discovered that the car had only a 300 HP engine. Buyer sues dealer. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: A car dealer special ordered a new car from the factory according the buyer’s specifications, including 350 HP engine. After the car arrived and the dealer sold it to the buyer, buyer discovered that the car had only a 300 HP engine. Buyer sues dealer.
In the original situation, the seller intended to sell only Parcel 1 but the deed included both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, leading to a dispute where the seller alleges the document was altered after signing. The core issue is a discrepancy between what was agreed upon/intended and what was legally documented/delivered, with an implication of a breach of agreement. Option D presents a similar scenario: the buyer specified a 350 HP engine, but the car delivered had only a 300 HP engine. This is a direct discrepancy between the buyer's specifications (intent/agreement) and the delivered product, leading to a lawsuit, paralleling the seller's situation.
Question 5: As _____ is to _______, negligence is to duty.
- adult : child
- husband : wife
- commandment : theft
- rule : element (Correct answer)
Correct answer: rule : element
In legal terms, 'duty' is one of the essential 'elements' that must be proven to establish 'negligence.' Negligence is defined as the breach of a duty of care. Therefore, duty is a fundamental component or prerequisite for negligence. Similarly, an 'element' is a fundamental part or component that makes up a 'rule' or a legal concept. Thus, 'rule : element' best captures this relationship where one term is a necessary component of the other.
Question 6: Choose the response option that adequately fills up the blank: Actors are all outgoing people. . George is outgoing.
- Kramer is an actor.
- George is an actor. (Correct answer)
- George is very outgoing.
- George acts like an extrovert.
Correct answer: George is an actor.
The question asks to fill in a blank, implying a missing premise that, when combined with 'Actors are all outgoing people,' leads to 'George is outgoing' as a conclusion. The argument structure would be: Premise 1 (blank); Premise 2: All Actors are outgoing; Conclusion: George is outgoing. To make this a valid deduction, the missing Premise 1 must be 'George is an actor.' If George is an actor, and all actors are outgoing, then George must be outgoing.
Question 7: Choose the response that fully answers the following: If a driver's negligence resulted in the plaintiff's injuries, all culpable drivers may be held accountable. Plaintiff James was hurt as a result of Shanna's carelessness.
- Darlene caused Plaintiff Paul’s injury.
- Darlene was negligent.
- Darlene can be liable for Plaintiff Paul’s injury. (Correct answer)
- Darlene has no defense to Plaintiff Paul’s negligence suit.
Correct answer: Darlene can be liable for Plaintiff Paul’s injury.
The first premise establishes a general rule: if a driver's negligence causes injuries, then the culpable driver may be held accountable. The second premise provides a specific instance of negligence causing injury (Shanna's carelessness hurt James). The question asks what 'fully answers the following,' and the correct answer, C, applies this general rule to a new, hypothetical situation involving Darlene and Plaintiff Paul. It states that if Darlene's negligence caused Paul's injury (implied by the application of the rule), then Darlene *can be liable*, which is consistent with the general principle established in the first premise.
Question 8: Like a _____ is to a ______, a corporation is to a subsidiary.
- parent : child (Correct answer)
- sister : brother
- ocean : bay
- leaf : tree
Correct answer: parent : child
A 'subsidiary' is a company that is owned or controlled by another company, which is known as the 'parent' company. The relationship is one of hierarchical control and ownership. Option A, 'parent : child,' best captures this dynamic, as a child is typically dependent on and under the control of a parent, mirroring the relationship between a parent corporation and its subsidiary.
Question 9: Select the answer choice that correctly provides the missing premise:_________________________________________. Shanna violated her duty of care while operating a vehicle. Shanna was careless.
- All automobile drivers who breach the duty of care owed to others are negligent. (Correct answer)
- All automobile drivers breach the duty of care to others.
- All automobile drivers owe a duty of care to others.
- All automobile drivers named Darlene are negligent.
Correct answer: All automobile drivers who breach the duty of care owed to others are negligent.
The argument's conclusion is 'Shanna was careless' (meaning negligent), and the given premise is 'Shanna violated her duty of care while operating a vehicle.' To logically connect violating a duty of care to being negligent, a general rule is needed. Option A, 'All automobile drivers who breach the duty of care owed to others are negligent,' provides this essential link. If this premise is true, then Shanna's violation of her duty of care directly leads to the conclusion that she was negligent (careless).
Question 10: Select the answer choice that correctly provides the missing premise: _______________________. Stegosauruses were dinosaurs.Stegosauruses were warm-blooded.
- All stegosauruses were warm-blooded.
- All dinosaurs were warm-blooded. (Correct answer)
- All dinosaurs were stegosauruses.
- All stegosauruses were dinosaurs.
Correct answer: All dinosaurs were warm-blooded.
The argument concludes that 'Stegosauruses were warm-blooded,' based on the premise that 'Stegosauruses were dinosaurs.' To logically derive this conclusion, a missing premise is needed that connects dinosaurs to being warm-blooded. Option B, 'All dinosaurs were warm-blooded,' provides this necessary link. If all dinosaurs were warm-blooded, and stegosauruses were a type of dinosaur, then it logically follows that stegosauruses were warm-blooded.
Question 11: Choose the response that fully answers each of the following questions: Every car driver has a responsibility to drive safely. Driving a car is something Janna does.
- Darlene owes a duty of care to automobiles.
- Darlene is a driver of an automobile.
- Darlene owes a duty of care to others. (Correct answer)
- All automobile drivers owe a duty of care to Darlene.
Correct answer: Darlene owes a duty of care to others.
The premises establish a general rule: 'Every car driver has a responsibility to drive safely' (i.e., owes a duty of care). The second premise states 'Driving a car is something Janna does,' identifying Janna as a car driver. The question asks what 'fully answers the following,' and the correct answer, C, applies this general principle to a hypothetical individual, Darlene. It states that Darlene owes a duty of care to others, which is a direct application of the established rule to anyone who is a car driver.
Question 12: Like a _____ is to a ______, an automobile is to a tire.
- ice : water
- eagle : falcon
- street : sidewalk
- book : page (Correct answer)
Correct answer: book : page
A 'tire' is a fundamental and essential component of an 'automobile,' necessary for its primary function of movement. It represents a crucial part-to-whole relationship. Option D, 'book : page,' best mirrors this relationship. A 'page' is an essential and integral part of a 'book,' without which the book cannot exist in its typical form or convey its content. Both analogies describe a critical component that enables the function and existence of the larger whole.
Question 13: Choose the response option that most accurately sums up Jim's reactions to the following: Is Maika in the apartment, Carl? Yes, George. That's accurate, Carl? Jim: No.
- If Jim’s second answer is true, his first answer is true.
- If jim’s first answer is false, his second answer is true. (Correct answer)
- Maika must have left the apartment after Jim's first response.
- If Jim’s first answer is false, his second answer is false.
Correct answer: If jim’s first answer is false, his second answer is true.
Jim's first answer to Carl's question 'Is Maika in the apartment?' was 'Yes.' When Carl then asked 'That's accurate, Carl?' (meaning, 'Is your first answer true?'), Jim replied 'No.' Jim's second 'No' means that his first answer ('Yes') was *not* accurate, or in other words, his first answer was *false*. Therefore, if Jim's first answer was indeed false, then his second answer (stating that the first was not accurate) would be true. Option B accurately captures this logical consequence of Jim's statements.
Question 14: The jury found that while driving south on Maple Drive, the driver of the brown car ran a red light at the junction of First Street. Angie stated that she was traveling west on First Street in her blue Toyota. She further stated that a brown automobile struck her Toyota while she was driving through the intersection while the light was green and she was approaching Maple Drive. Angie's testimony was accepted by the jury, and they came to the conclusion that John, the owner of the brown automobile, was negligent in causing the incident. Was John careless based solely on these facts?
- Yes, because John is the owner of the vehicle.
- Yes, because the driver of the brown car was negligent.
- No, because Angie should not have driven through the intersection at that time.
- No, because no evidence shows that John was the driver of the brown car (Correct answer)
Correct answer: No, because no evidence shows that John was the driver of the brown car
The jury found that the *driver of the brown car* was negligent for running a red light. However, the conclusion drawn was that *John, the owner of the brown car*, was negligent. The provided facts only state that John *owns* the brown car; there is no evidence presented that explicitly identifies John as the *driver* of the brown car at the time of the accident. Without this crucial link, one cannot conclude that John was careless based *solely on these facts*, as ownership does not automatically equate to being the driver or being negligent.
Question 15: Choose the response that fully answers the following: Every person is mortal. A person, Plato is a human. t.
- Palto should make a will
- All mortals are human beings
- All human beings are Plato
- Plato is mortal (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Plato is mortal
This is a classic example of a deductive syllogism. The first premise states that all persons are mortal, establishing a general rule. The second premise identifies Plato as a specific instance of a person (a human). Therefore, by applying the general rule to the specific instance, it logically follows that Plato must also be mortal.
Question 16: As ______ is to _________, apple is to orange.
- snow : water
- sparrow : robin (Correct answer)
- tree : soil
- air : smog
Correct answer: sparrow : robin
The analogy 'apple is to orange' describes two distinct items that belong to the same general category (fruits). Similarly, 'sparrow is to robin' describes two distinct items that belong to the same general category (birds). Both pairs represent different types within a common classification, making this the most fitting comparison.
Free LSAT Ultimate Questions and Answers
Choose the response that fully answers the following: Every comic is a cynic.
Henry is a funny guy.