← All LSAT Flashcard Decks

General Flashcards

7 cards from real LSAT practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.

Read the first 7 General flashcards as text
  1. In LSAT terms, a 'must be false' question is asking for the answer that:

    Answer: Cannot be true given the conditions of the game or argument

    A 'must be false' question requires identifying the answer that is impossible under the given constraints.

  2. Which of the following question types is unique to the Reading Comprehension section?

    Answer: Passage structure questions

    Passage structure questions, which ask about the organization or function of specific paragraphs, are characteristic of Reading Comprehension.

  3. An LSAT argument is described as 'valid' when:

    Answer: If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true

    In formal logic, validity means the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, regardless of whether those premises are actually true.

  4. In a sequencing Logic Game, if element X must come before element Y and Y must come before Z, which of the following is definitely true?

    Answer: X comes before Z

    By transitivity, if X < Y and Y < Z, then X < Z must also hold, regardless of other elements' positions.

  5. The 'principle' question type in Logical Reasoning typically asks you to:

    Answer: Identify a general rule that justifies the argument or matches a specific situation

    Principle questions ask you to match an abstract rule to a concrete situation or identify the rule that underlies the argument.

  6. How many times may a test-taker sit for the LSAT in a single testing year (August through June)?

    Answer: 5 times

    Test-takers are limited to five LSAT attempts in any single testing year (August–June cycle).

  7. Which of the following describes the 'argument from analogy' flaw on the LSAT?

    Answer: Assuming two situations are alike in a relevant way when they may differ significantly

    An argument from analogy is flawed when the compared cases differ in ways that are relevant to the conclusion being drawn.