LSAT Writing common mistakes
LSAT Writing · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Choosing a side before reading both options fully, then writing the essay to defend that gut pick regardless of which option actually has stronger support in the stated criteria.
The prompt presents two positions and the clock pressure (35 minutes) tempts candidates to lock in the first plausible choice within a minute or two, then spend the rest of the time rationalizing it. This feels efficient but produces essays where the chosen option is defended with thin or invented reasons while the other side's real advantages go unaddressed.
What to do instead
Before writing, spend 3-4 minutes listing the strongest reason for each option against the decision criteria the prompt supplies. Pick the side where your reasons are concrete and checkable, not the side you personally prefer. If the two lists are close, pick the one whose reasons you can support with specific, plausible detail rather than the one that sounds more sympathetic.
Writing an essay that argues a general opinion about the topic (e.g., that environmental protection matters) instead of making the specific choice the prompt asks for between the two given options.
Candidates import essay habits from other writing tests where broad thesis statements score well. The LSAT prompt is a decision task: pick Option A or Option B and justify it. Drifting into abstract values talk signals to a reader that the writer did not engage with the actual decision.
What to do instead
State the choice explicitly in the first paragraph using the prompt's own labels ('I would choose the second option, renovating the existing building, because...'). Return to that framing in every body paragraph: each paragraph should name which option it supports and tie back to the decision criteria. Cut any sentence that could appear in an essay about the general topic.
Presenting only reasons for the chosen option and ignoring or strawmanning the rejected option, so the essay never engages with the strongest counterargument.
Candidates fear that acknowledging the other side weakens their case, or they run out of time and skip it. But the task rewards weighing both options; an essay that pretends the rejected option has no merit reads as one-sided and under-analyzed.
What to do instead
Devote one body paragraph to the strongest argument for the option you rejected, stated fairly, then explain why it is outweighed under the stated criteria. Use a concession structure: 'The first option has the advantage of X, but that advantage is limited because Y.' This shows you evaluated rather than assumed.
Making claims that depend on facts not given in the prompt (invented budgets, assumed public opinion, imagined legal rules) and treating them as established.
The prompt supplies a bounded set of facts and criteria. Candidates who feel their argument is thin pad it with plausible-sounding but unsupported assertions, which a careful reader will flag as speculation rather than reasoning.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline every fact and criterion the prompt actually provides. Build each argument from those. If you need an assumption, label it as an assumption and explain why it is reasonable ('if, as is typical for projects of this size, ...'). Prefer reasoning from the given criteria over inventing new data.
Burying the decision and its main justification under a long windup paragraph about the background situation, so the actual argument does not start until well into the essay.
Candidates treat the opening as a place to summarize the prompt and demonstrate they understood it. Under time pressure this eats minutes and words that should go to reasoning, and a reader scanning for the thesis finds it late.
What to do instead
Keep the opening to two or three sentences: name the choice and preview the two or three reasons. Skip restating the prompt's background; the reader already knows it. Spend the saved time on a concrete comparison paragraph.
Writing body paragraphs that each restate the same reason in different words rather than developing distinct, independent lines of support.
Word-count anxiety pushes candidates to keep writing after their real reasoning is exhausted, and repetition is the easiest way to fill space. The result looks long but advances no new argument.
What to do instead
Plan two or three genuinely different reasons before drafting (for example: cost, feasibility/timeline, and effect on the people involved). Give each its own paragraph with a distinct piece of support. If a paragraph could be deleted without losing a reason, it was repetition-cut it and deepen an existing paragraph instead.
Producing an essay with no clear organization-one block of prose, or paragraphs that jump between the two options without signposting-so the reasoning is hard to follow.
Candidates draft in one pass without an outline, and ideas arrive in the order they occur. Without structure, the reader must reconstruct the argument, and strong points get lost in the flow.
What to do instead
Spend two minutes on a skeleton before writing: thesis sentence, then one line per body paragraph naming its reason, then a counterargument paragraph, then a conclusion. Use transition sentences at the start of each paragraph that state its job ('The stronger objection concerns cost...').
Running out of time mid-sentence or leaving the essay without a conclusion because drafting, revising, and proofreading were not budgeted.
Candidates spend too long on the opening or on perfecting early sentences, then discover five minutes remain with two planned paragraphs unwritten. An unfinished essay reads as a failure to manage the task.
What to do instead
Set a rough clock: 4 minutes planning, 22 minutes drafting, 6 minutes reviewing, 3 minutes buffer. Write the thesis and body paragraphs first and leave a placeholder for the conclusion if needed, then return. Practice full timed essays so the pacing becomes automatic.
Leaving mechanical errors-misspellings, sentence fragments, run-ons, unclear pronoun references-that make sentences ambiguous or hard to parse.
Under time pressure candidates write complex sentences they do not reread, and small errors accumulate. Because the essay is scored on writing quality as well as reasoning, these errors directly cost points and can obscure an otherwise sound argument.
What to do instead
Reserve the final minutes for a targeted read-through focused on sentence boundaries: check that every sentence has a subject and verb and that run-ons are split. Read the essay silently as if hearing it. If a sentence is confusing on reread, simplify it rather than patching it.
Using vague evaluative language ('it is better,' 'more effective,' 'the best choice') without specifying the criterion or measure by which one option beats the other.
Candidates assume the comparison is obvious and skip naming the standard. But 'better' is empty unless tied to something measurable the prompt cares about, such as cost, time, or impact on a named group.
What to do instead
Whenever you compare the options, attach the criterion: 'cheaper over the first five years,' 'faster to complete before the deadline,' 'affects more residents directly.' If the prompt states decision criteria, quote or paraphrase them explicitly so each comparison is anchored to a stated standard.