Back to the on-screen lesson ·
Identify each question kind before answering a mixed set without question-kind headings.
Paper packet. Every task here also exists on screen, where it is checked automatically; answers written on paper are not assessed by Nydus. When you are back at a device, enter your answers there.
Select the appropriate reasoning test for each unfamiliar item and apply it without carrying the previous item's method forward.
The single-skill lessons supplied a topic heading that helped identify the method. Mixed practice removes that cue. You must use the question itself to decide whether to find an assumption, evaluate evidence, infer a conclusion, compare a pattern or explain a discrepancy.
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Task classification | Identifying the kind of reasoning judgment the question requests. |
| Method interference | Applying a previously useful method to a new question that requires a different one. |
| Task code | A practice label recording the selected method, not an official answer format. |
| Error diagnosis | Identifying whether a mistake arose in task selection, passage analysis or option comparison. |
Mixed Logical Reasoning practice tests method selection as well as execution. The same short argument can support different questions. A necessary-assumption question asks what the reasoning cannot lose; a sufficient-assumption question asks what completes a proof; a weakening question asks what reduces support. Applying the wrong test can make a plausible answer look correct for the wrong reason.
Use the question's demand to choose an operation. Are you adding information, drawing from existing information, describing a move, comparing two moves or reconciling observations? Then identify the target claim. This two-part start prevents a familiar topic from deciding the method. A passage about a survey can ask for its flaw, a strengthening fact, an evaluative question or a conclusion it supports.
The mixed records contain three items without question-kind headings. For each, enter a task code and the best answer's number. The code checks whether you selected the right test; the answer checks the result. These records are instructional tools rather than the official test response format. They are untimed and do not convert performance into an LSAT score.
Another way: picture
Treat each question as a new workbench. Put away the previous tool before selecting the next one. The argument may look similar, but the task determines whether you add a bridge, negate a condition or inspect an existing inference.
Another way: steps
Read the question; name its operation; identify the argument's target; apply the matching test; compare alternatives; reset before the next item.
For EXCEPT or LEAST questions, state the positive test first and then identify the candidate that fails it. In a weaken-EXCEPT task, four options weaken; the answer may strengthen or simply leave support unchanged. Do not assume the exception must prove the conclusion. In an inference-EXCEPT task, preserve the given facts and find the unsupported option. Do not negate every sentence in the passage.
For example, suppose all kiln-fired tiles are durable, and some durable tiles are imported. It follows that any fragile tile is not kiln-fired, but it does not follow that some kiln-fired tiles are imported: the two groups may occupy different parts of the durable collection. In an EXCEPT list containing that unsupported overlap and four valid consequences, choose the overlap. The word EXCEPT changes which answer you select, not the direction of the original rule.
For a LEAST-support task, compare the actual support supplied. A fact can be relevant yet weaker than a controlled comparison. Do not label a modest strengthening fact as a weakening fact merely because another option helps more. Distinguish must follow from most strongly supported as well: a necessary inference survives every situation allowed by the premises, whereas an evidential judgment compares the degree of support. Before submitting, reread the task's polarity and scope. The four added practice questions deliberately switch among these operations.
Strengthen, weaken and sufficient-assumption questions invite a new statement into the argument. Evaluate the effect of that addition while preserving the original premises. Inference questions instead ask what the given information supports; adding a convenient rule changes the task.
Suppose every inspected device has a label and a named device lacks a label. An inference can rule out inspection. If the question instead asks what would establish approval, you may need an additional rule connecting inspection or labeling to approval. The same vocabulary can appear in both tasks, but the permitted operation differs. Read the stem before starting a proof.
For necessity, deny the candidate precisely and inspect the effect on required support. For sufficiency, accept the candidate and derive the conclusion. A claim can be sufficient without being necessary because it is stronger than needed or because another route could work.
A mixed set can place these questions next to one another. Do not carry the negation test into a sufficient-assumption item just because both mention assumptions. State the test in a short phrase before evaluating options: cannot do without, or enough when added. This small reset protects the conceptual distinction you learned in the earlier lessons.
Strengthening improves support and weakening reduces it. Neither normally requires a complete proof of truth or falsity. A randomized comparison can strengthen an attribution while a preexisting difference can weaken it. An evaluation question asks which missing information could change that assessment.
When moving from a weakener to an evaluator, do not select a question merely because one imagined answer is unfavorable. Test contrasting answers. When moving from an evaluator to a strengthener, remember that the option is now a fact to accept, not an unanswered question. The relation to the gap remains central, but the response format and inferential demand change.
A flaw question asks which description fits the unsupported move in one argument. A parallel-flaw question asks which other argument repeats that move. The first requires accurate abstraction; the second also requires a comparison with a new set of premises and conclusion.
For a parallel item, preserve quantity, negation and direction after identifying the flaw. Two arguments can both be invalid for different reasons. A reversed conditional does not match an unrepresentative sample merely because both conclusions lack adequate support. Conversely, different subject matter can conceal an exact match. The logical relation, not the nouns, determines the comparison.
A dialogue item may require a yes/no proposition supported on both sides. One speaker can agree with the other's limited recommendation while adding a warning about a stronger proposal. Do not manufacture disagreement by upgrading the first speaker's claim.
Use unknown where the text leaves a position open. This is especially important in a mixed set, where a preceding flaw question may make you expect the second speaker to be correcting an error. Read the actual exchange. Shared support for another trial and rejection of permanent adoption can coexist. The question's wording may ask for a description of their positions rather than assume a dispute exists.
A resolution item asks you to keep both surprising observations. If recorded complaints rise while measured failures fall, a reporting change can explain the combination. Denying one observation is not a solution.
A preceding weakening item may prime you to attack the evidence. Reset: the discrepancy's facts are now the target to explain. Identify the hidden assumption that made them seem incompatible, such as a stable reporting rate or unchanged population. Then test whether the candidate changes that assumption in the needed direction. A true but unrelated detail does not resolve the tension.
A wrong task code with a correct answer may indicate that you guessed successfully or used a fragile shortcut. A correct code with a wrong answer suggests the problem occurred later, perhaps in scope, attribution or option comparison. The record makes those stages visible instead of reducing every mistake to one undifferentiated wrong response.
After checking feedback, identify the decisive feature in the passage. Do not merely memorize the correct option number, since positions and scenarios can change. Revisit the method contrast that caused the error. If you confused some with all, review scope; if you treated a requirement as a guarantee, review direction. Focused diagnosis makes the next mixed attempt more informative than repeating the same routine without reflection.
When reviewing a mixed set, first check the task code and then the answer. If the code is wrong, return to the wording that specifies the demand before studying the detailed solution. If the code is right, locate the narrower reasoning error. This separates choosing the tool from using it.
The three-item records are practice sets, not timed replicas of an official section. Their automatic feedback checks bounded answers and task classifications. It does not estimate a scaled score, reading speed or readiness for every official item. The worked examples model switching with separate arguments; practice and final sets use different scenarios. On a later attempt, pause at the start of each item long enough to name the operation. As the distinctions become reliable, the classification can become brief without disappearing from your reasoning.
Do not assume the previous question's method continues. Keep negating, adding, inferring, matching and reconciling distinct. A correct selected option does not by itself show that the task was classified correctly.
Read the passage and question.
A school attributes improved attendance to a new breakfast program. Attendance rose after the program began, but the school has not compared prior attendance among participants and nonparticipants.
Which question most helps evaluate the explanation?
The answer is a question whose possible answers change the attribution of improved attendance.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: Did participants already attend more regularly before joining the program? 2: Are the breakfast trays square? 3: Does the principal enjoy breakfast? 4: Is the school name printed in capitals? 5: How many paintings hang in the office?
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
Did participants already attend more regularly before joining the program?
A preexisting difference could explain the comparison, while similar baselines would remove that particular rival.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: Tray shape has no stated connection to attendance. 3: Personal preference does not test attribution. 4: Typography does not distinguish causal explanations. 5: The paintings are unrelated to the proposed mechanism.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
Every preserved specimen has an inventory entry. Specimen H has an entry, so it must be preserved.
Which argument repeats the same flaw?
Now the task is to reproduce an invalid converse, not ask what evidence would evaluate it.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: Every approved invoice has a code; this invoice has a code, so it is approved. 2: Every approved invoice has a code; this invoice lacks a code, so it is not approved. 3: Every approved invoice has a code; this invoice is approved, so it has a code. 4: Some invoices are coded, so some coded things are invoices. 5: The invoice is in Drawer A or B, not A, so B.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
Every approved invoice has a code; this invoice has a code, so it is approved.
Both infer the antecedent from its necessary consequence.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: This is valid contraposition rather than the same flaw. 3: This validly follows the rule forward. 4: That preserves an existential overlap. 5: This is elimination of a disjunct.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A theater reduced its average ticket price while increasing total ticket revenue during the same month.
Which fact best resolves the apparent discrepancy?
Keep both the lower price and higher total revenue instead of attacking either fact.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: It added enough well-attended performances to more than offset the lower average ticket price. 2: It sold fewer tickets and charged less for each. 3: It actually raised the average ticket price. 4: The theater changed its curtain color. 5: No performance had any audience.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
It added enough well-attended performances to more than offset the lower average ticket price.
A larger number of tickets can increase total revenue despite the lower amount per ticket.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: Both changes point toward less revenue. 3: That denies one of the observations. 4: No ticket-volume mechanism is supplied. 5: That cannot explain increased ticket revenue.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Check the difficult boundary.
Method switching changes the operation even when every item concerns evidence and conclusions.
This last check preserves the exact strength and scope of the answer rather than turning it into a broader claim.
Read the first demand.
An argument about training asks what must be true if all its premises are true.
Use inference from the given statements.
Read the next demand independently.
A second training argument asks what additional rule would make its conclusion follow.
Use sufficient repair by adding a candidate, not merely inference from the old premises.
Record the distinction.
A bakery sold more loaves after changing its sign. The owner attributes all the increase to the sign. Which fact most weakens that attribution?
Dara: 'The trial justifies a larger test.' Emil: 'It does justify a larger test, but not permanent adoption yet.' Which statement describes their stated positions? (1) Emil rejects every use of the trial. (2) Both claim permanent success is certain. (3) Both support a larger test; no disagreement about that proposal is established. (4) They disagree that a larger test is justified. (5) Dara explicitly demands permanent adoption. Identify the question kind first, then choose the matching operation: add, negate, infer, compare, describe or reconcile. Complete the method with the number of the best answer.
Name the precise task.
Identify the question kind first, then choose the matching operation: add, negate, infer, compare, describe or reconcile.
The question determines what would count as a successful answer.
Compare the candidates against the target.
Best answer: answer.
Preserve quantities, speaker attribution and the exact conclusion or passage claim.
Check the strongest rival.
Explain which required connection that rival lacks.
A defensible rejection exposes the misconception rather than memorizing an option number.
Item 1 Every qualified technician passed a test. Ren passed the test, so Ren is qualified. Which description identifies the flaw? (1) The argument generalizes from a survey. (2) It attacks Ren's motives. (3) It draws a valid contrapositive. (4) It denies that tests exist. (5) A stated requirement is treated as a guarantee. Item 2 A fund recommends projects that both preserve access and fit its budget. Project N meets both conditions. Which judgment applies the rule? (1) Only N can fit the budget. (2) No access condition matters. (3) The fund recommends N. (4) N is certain to have no drawbacks. (5) Every project is recommended. Item 3 After a store simplified returns, recorded return requests increased while an audit found fewer faulty products. Which fact best resolves the apparent tension? (1) Customers became more likely to report the remaining faults because the process was easier. (2) The audit found more faults. (3) No requests were recorded. (4) The store changed its logo. (5) Every product became faulty. For each item identify the question kind before entering the best answer's number. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. No question-kind headings are supplied above the items.
| Item | Task code | Answer number |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | ||
| Item 2 | ||
| Item 3 |
A bakery sold more loaves after changing its sign. The owner attributes all the increase to the sign. Which fact most weakens that attribution?
Every registered boat has an inspection record. Boat S lacks an inspection record. Which conclusion follows?
Dara: 'The trial justifies a larger test.' Emil: 'It does justify a larger test, but not permanent adoption yet.' Which statement describes their stated positions?
Every qualified technician passed a test. Ren passed the test, so Ren is qualified. Which description identifies the flaw?
A fund recommends projects that both preserve access and fit its budget. Project N meets both conditions. Which judgment applies the rule?
After a store simplified returns, recorded return requests increased while an audit found fewer faulty products. Which fact best resolves the apparent tension?
A library's automatic reminders reduced late returns caused by forgetting due dates. A tool-lending service proposes reminders, but most late tools are retained because replacement parts arrive late. Which consideration most weakens the comparison?
Oli: The proposal is feasible; we have the staff and materials. Paz: It is not feasible because it would be unfair to neighboring residents. Which distinction would clarify the exchange?
A gardener concludes that shade caused seedlings to grow slowly because shaded seedlings grew less than sunny seedlings. Each finding weakens that explanation EXCEPT: Which finding does not weaken the explanation?
Every instrument stored in cabinet D is calibrated. Some calibrated instruments are reserved for teaching. No teaching instrument may be borrowed overnight. All of the following are supported EXCEPT:
A transit authority predicts that an express service will shorten door-to-door journeys because it makes fewer stops than the existing service. Which fact would provide the LEAST support for that prediction?
A shop sold more repair kits this month than last month but earned less revenue from repair-kit sales. Each fact could help explain the difference EXCEPT: Which fact fails to help reconcile the results?
Item 1 A librarian argues that a new reminder caused earlier returns. Comparable borrowers randomly assigned reminders returned earlier than those assigned no reminders. What role does the comparison play? (1) A conclusion that all borrowers always return early. (2) An unrelated historical detail. (3) An objection the librarian rejects. (4) A definition of borrower. (5) Evidence supporting the causal claim about reminders. Item 2 Every reviewed manuscript is eligible for publication. Manuscript Q has an editor's note. The author concludes that Q is eligible. Which addition makes the conclusion follow? (1) Q has a short title. (2) Every eligible manuscript has a note. (3) Every manuscript with an editor's note has been reviewed. (4) Every reviewed manuscript has an editor's note. (5) Some manuscripts with notes are reviewed. Item 3 A notice is expected to directly recruit some readers to a meeting. Which assumption does that direct recruitment require? (1) Some readers of the notice can attend the meeting. (2) Every reader attends. (3) The notice wins an award. (4) No reader sees the notice before the meeting. (5) The meeting serves coffee. For each item identify the question kind before entering the best answer's number. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. No question-kind headings are supplied above the items.
| Item | Task code | Answer number |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | ||
| Item 2 | ||
| Item 3 |
Lesson test: one question per skill, one attempt each, no hints. Your answers are checked when you submit.
Item 1 A shuttle is predicted to shorten total commuting time by replacing a long walk. Which question best evaluates the prediction? (1) Will riders find sitting on the shuttle more comfortable than walking? (2) Will the shuttle offer a lower fare than a taxi? (3) Will residents who currently drive also use the shuttle? (4) Does the operator already run popular routes elsewhere? (5) Will waiting for the shuttle offset the walking time it saves? Item 2 Some archivists are translators. Every translator reads a second language. Therefore some archivists read a second language. Which argument matches this pattern? (1) No gardener has a key; therefore some gardeners have keys. (2) Gardening is popular, so every gardener teaches. (3) Some gardeners are teachers; every teacher has a key; therefore some gardeners have keys. (4) Some gardeners teach; some teachers have keys; therefore all gardeners have keys. (5) All gardeners have keys; therefore all key holders garden. Item 3 A plan predicts more visits from adding evening hours for people unavailable during the day. Which finding most strengthens the proposed mechanism? (1) A pilot drew many visitors who could not attend daytime sessions. (2) The building has a new logo. (3) All evening sessions will be canceled. (4) Some people dislike buildings. (5) The manager has a long surname. For each item identify the question kind before entering the best answer's number. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. No question-kind headings are supplied above the items.
| Item | Task code | Answer number |
|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | ||
| Item 2 | ||
| Item 3 |
Tomorrow, recall the contrast between adding, denying, inferring, matching and reconciling. Revisit a mixed set and classify each task before answering. Next: switch between longer reading questions and Logical Reasoning.
18. Reset between two similar arguments, step 3
IN uses existing support; SA adds a completing premise.
The shared topic does not make the methods interchangeable.