LSAT Reading Comprehension cheat sheet

Primary purpose names the author's rhetorical action (explain, evaluate, refute, reconcile, correct); main idea states the central claim the passage as a whole supports.

A main-idea choice is correct only if every paragraph contributes to it; a true statement confined to a single paragraph is too narrow.

Purpose answers have two parts that must both match: an action verb (argues, describes, challenges) and a content clause summarizing the passage's subject.

Purpose verbs must match stance: an explanatory passage is not 'defending a theory,' and a critical passage is not 'summarizing research.'

Scope words in a main-idea choice (all, never, only, primarily) must be backed by the whole passage rather than one sentence.

When a passage presents a study and then critiques it, the main idea is the critique, not the study's findings.

When two choices both seem supported, the more qualified and more general one is usually correct, because passages rarely support absolute claims.

Ordering test: if a choice describes an early part of the passage but omits the conclusion the passage reaches, it is a detail, not the main idea.

Correct explicit-detail answers paraphrase the text; verbatim choices are frequently traps because they drop a qualifier the original contained.

Cite-the-line rule: if no specific sentence supports a choice, that choice answers an inference question, not a stated-information question.

Modifier shifts decide answers: some versus most, can versus does, correlates with versus causes, often versus always.

Names, dates, numbers, and units in a choice must match the passage exactly, including ranges and stated approximations.

The passage may report others' claims without endorsing them; only the author's own assertions count as stated content attributable to the author.

A statement that is true in the real world but absent from the passage is incorrect even when it seems obvious.

Detail questions generally follow passage order, so their answers can be located sequentially.

Standard is must be true: the answer follows necessarily from stated facts; merely plausible or likely answers are incorrect.

Valid inferences usually combine two stated facts into a modest restatement rather than introducing a new causal claim.

From the fact that events co-occur or occur in sequence, causation cannot be inferred unless the passage supplies a mechanism.

From 'all A are B' one may infer that anything not B is not A (contrapositive); inferring B therefore A is invalid.

'Some A are B' is equivalent to 'some B are A'; 'most A are B' does not imply 'most B are A.'

The author's opinion of a view cannot be inferred from the mere act of reporting it; look for evaluative language attached to the report.

Predictions about future developments cannot be inferred from a purely descriptive account unless the passage asserts a continuing trend.

Substitution test: replace the term in the original sentence with each answer choice and keep the only choice that preserves the sentence's logic.

When a passage stipulates a technical definition, that definition controls over ordinary usage of the same word.

Quotation marks or italics often flag a term as the author's attribution to others or as ironic usage rather than endorsement.

'In order to' questions ask for the function of a phrase, so the answer is a purpose clause (to illustrate, to concede, to qualify), not a definition.

Pronoun referents ('this,' 'such a view,' 'the former') resolve to the nearest preceding expression that produces a coherent sentence, often a full clause.

A repeated term normally retains one meaning throughout; if the meaning shifts, the passage typically signals the shift explicitly.

Contrast markers (however, yet, although) usually mark the point where the author qualifies or rejects the preceding term.

Recurring structures: thesis–counterargument–rebuttal; phenomenon–hypothesis–test–conclusion; chronology; comparison and contrast; problem–solution.

Structure answers must map to the passage's actual sequence of moves, so the first paragraph's function is whatever it does before the second begins.

Paragraph functions include: introduce a view, supply evidence, raise an objection, concede a point, draw a conclusion.

Transition words locate the joints: 'thus' signals a conclusion, 'for example' signals illustration, 'however' signals reversal.

A concession introduced by 'admittedly' or 'to be sure' is normally followed by the author's actual claim after 'but' or 'yet.'

Extended examples exist to support the general claim that precedes them; identify the claim, and the example's role follows.

If the final paragraph returns to the opening claim, the passage is circular in structure; if it introduces a new topic, it is building toward an application.

Judge applications by structural match, not subject matter: a principle drawn from biology may apply to an economics case if the same relationship holds.

Restate the passage's rule as an if-then statement, then test whether the new case satisfies the trigger conditions.

The correct application preserves the original relationship (undermines, exemplifies, enables, precedes); reversed relationships are wrong.

If the passage treats a factor as a necessary condition, an application omitting that factor is invalid even when every other feature matches.

Wrong answers typically alter the one feature the passage identified as essential while leaving surface details identical.

Application answers may not rely on information outside the passage or outside the stated facts of the new scenario.

A principle is the general rule that, if granted, licenses the passage's move from evidence to conclusion; it is often left unstated.

Descriptive claims state how things are; principles state what should be or what generally follows. Answers that cross this line are unsupported.

If the passage faults a practice for producing a harmful result, the implicit principle is that practices producing harmful results should be avoided or reformed.

Principle answers must be general enough to cover the passage's case and narrow enough to exclude cases the passage treats as irrelevant.

Principles may be voiced by the author's opponents; attribute the rule to the correct party before evaluating it.

A principle stronger than the passage's conclusion (an absolute where the passage hedges) cannot be the principle operating in the passage.

Label the original relationship abstractly first (cause–effect, means–end, part–whole, instance–class, necessary condition), then require the same label in the answer.

Order matters: if the passage says A produces B, an analogy in which B produces A reverses the relation and is incorrect.

Similarity of topic is not similarity of relation; an analogy that shares subject matter but changes the logical role fails.

An analogy to an argument must preserve the premise-to-conclusion function, not merely the argument's subject.

If the original involves a necessary condition or a sufficient condition, the analogy must contain the same conditional structure.

Analogies to an author's criticism must reproduce the ground of the criticism (for example, unreliability of a source), not just the fact of criticism.

Attitude ranges along a scale: enthusiastic endorsement, qualified agreement, neutrality, skepticism, outright rejection; answers must land at the passage's actual point on that scale.

Adjectives and adverbs (ingenious, crude, merely, surprisingly, carefully) carry the strongest attitudinal signal in a passage.

Reporting a view without evaluative language indicates neutrality toward that view, not endorsement of it.

Hedges such as 'it seems,' 'arguably,' and 'tends to' mark cautious agreement rather than confident assertion.

Concessive constructions ('although the sample was small, the results are striking') show the author weighing a weakness against a strength.

Words such as 'alleged,' 'so-called,' and 'purported' signal that the author doubts or distances from the labeled claim.

Extreme tone words (contempt, amusement, outrage) usually overstate; authors of these passages are typically measured and qualified.

Locate the specific sentence the new fact would confirm or contradict, and identify whether that sentence is a premise, an example, or the conclusion.

Contradicting a premise damages the argument more than contradicting a supporting example, since the conclusion depends on premises.

When two explanations are presented as competitors, evidence favoring one normally counts against the other.

A hedged or conditional conclusion can survive evidence that would refute an unqualified version of the same claim.

New information that is interesting but touches no stated claim is the most common incorrect answer in this question type.

Check whether a qualifier already in the passage anticipated the new information; if so, the impact is minimal or none.

Determine each passage's central claim independently before judging the relationship; conflating them distorts both readings.

Standard relationship types: restatement, extension, qualification, rebuttal, competing explanations of one phenomenon, general account versus case study.

Passages disagree only when they address the same question; differences in scope or topic make 'the authors disagree' answers incorrect.

One passage may accept the other's evidence while rejecting its interpretation, so agreement on facts is not agreement on conclusions.

Questions asking how one author would respond to the other are answered from the first author's stated principle, not from the second passage's claims.

If one passage supplies data and the other supplies theory, the relationship is complementary rather than adversarial.

Shared vocabulary across the passages does not imply shared meaning; check whether each author defines the key term the same way.