How to Identify and Solve Inference Questions on the LSAT

These questions often begin with phrases like:

• “Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?”
• “Which one of the following must be true?”
• “The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?”

To approach inference questions effectively and boost your LSAT score, start by reading carefully and focusing on exactly what is stated. Remember, every word counts. Avoid bringing in outside knowledge or making assumptions that go beyond the information in the passage. 

Be especially cautious of answers that include exaggerations; strong language like “always,” “never,” “all,” or “none” is rarely correct unless it’s explicitly backed by the stimulus. On the other hand, answers that use softer qualifiers like “some,” “may,” “can,” or “often” are often more in line with what the passage supports.

As you consider each option, ask yourself: If everything in the passage is true, does this answer have to be true, too? If the answer is no, eliminate it.

3 Sample LSAT "Inference" Questions With Answer Explanations

Here are three sample Inference questions with a detailed explanation for each answer.

Sample Question #1

“Modern science is built on the process of posing hypotheses and testing them against observations—in essence, attempting to show that the hypotheses are incorrect. Nothing brings more recognition than overthrowing conventional wisdom. It is accordingly unsurprising that some scientists are skeptical of the widely accepted predictions of global warming. What is instead remarkable is that with hundreds of researchers striving to make breakthroughs in climatology, very few find evidence that global warming is unlikely.”

The information above provides the most support for which one of the following statements?

(A) Most scientists who are reluctant to accept the global warming hypothesis are not acting in accordance with the accepted standards of scientific debate.
(B) Most researchers in climatology have substantial motive to find evidence that would discredit the global warming hypothesis.
(C) There is evidence that conclusively shows that the global warming hypothesis is true.
(D) Scientists who are skeptical about global warming have not offered any alternative hypotheses to explain climatological data.
(E) Research in global warming is primarily driven by a desire for recognition in the scientific community. 

Answer:

A. Incorrect. The stimulus doesn’t mention an “accepted standard of scientific debate.” This choice seems to introduce an idea related to “scientific consensus,” which, while often discussed in media coverage of global warming, isn’t referenced in the passage.

B. Correct. The stimulus supports this. It states that significant recognition comes from overturning widely accepted views. Since global warming predictions are broadly accepted, disproving them would challenge conventional wisdom, likely earning recognition. It's also reasonable to assume scientists value recognition for their work.

C. Incorrect. The fact that global warming predictions are widely accepted and haven’t been disproven doesn’t prove they are definitively true. A lack of disproof is not the same as conclusive proof.

D. Incorrect. This is a misleading option. The stimulus says no opposing evidence has been found, but that doesn't mean there are no alternative hypotheses, just that those hypotheses currently lack supporting evidence.

E. Incorrect. The passage doesn’t address what motivates research. It only notes that overturning conventional wisdom can bring recognition. It says nothing about the recognition gained from research that aligns with existing beliefs.

Sample Question #2

“Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly, and local political business is usually conducted secretively. These factors each tend to isolate local politicians from their electorates. This has the effect of reducing the chance that any particular act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response, which in turn discourages resident participation in local politics.”

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist’s statements?

(A) Particular acts of resident participation would be likely to elicit a positive response from local politicians if those politicians were less isolated from their electorate.
(B) Local political business should be conducted less secretively because this would avoid discouraging resident participation in local politics.
(C) The most important factor influencing a resident’s decision as to whether to participate in local politics is the chance that the participation will elicit a positive official response.
(D) More-frequent thorough coverage of local politics would reduce at least one source of discouragement from resident participation in local politics.
(E) If resident participation in local politics were not discouraged, this would cause local politicians to be less isolated from their electorate.

Answer:

A. This choice confuses the terms "less likely" and "unlikely." The stimulus tells us isolation makes politicians less likely to respond positively, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are unlikely to do so. A drop from 95% to 85% is still “likely,” just less so. So, we can’t conclude something is unlikely simply because the likelihood has decreased. “Unlikely” is an absolute judgment, while “less likely” is relative. This distinction is crucial on the LSAT. The answer is incorrect because isolation might only reduce the chance slightly (e.g., from 20% to 19%), meaning positive responses are still not “likely.”

B. This option introduces the idea of what should be true, but the LSAT focuses strictly on what is true based on the stimulus. Since the stimulus doesn’t discuss what ought to happen, this answer goes beyond the scope.

C. This choice assumes something not supported by the passage. The stimulus only tells us that the chance of a positive response is influenced by isolation, not that it’s the sole or most important factor. Other influences could also be at play.

D. Correct. This option correctly follows the logic laid out in the passage. If local politics happen in secret and the media isn’t covering them, politicians become isolated. That isolation reduces their responsiveness, which in turn discourages public participation. This follows the chain of reasoning presented.

E. This choice mistakenly treats the reasoning as a formal conditional statement and tries to apply the contrapositive. However, the language in the passage is probabilistic (e.g., “tends to”) rather than strictly conditional. Since the statements aren't absolute, applying a contrapositive is invalid.

Sample Question #3 

“Most of the students who took Spanish 101 at the university last semester attended every class session. However, each student who received a grade lower than B minus missed at least one class session.” 

Which one of the following statements about the students who took Spanish 101 at the university last semester can be properly inferred from the information above?

(A) At least some of the students who received a grade of A minus or higher attended every class session.
(B) Most, if not all, of the students who missed at least one class session received a grade lower than B minus.
(C) Most of the students received a grade higher than B minus.
(D) At least one student who received a grade of B minus or higher missed one or more class sessions.
(E) More than half of the students received a grade of B minus or higher.

Answer:

A. We have no information about students who earned an A-minus or higher. It's possible only one student reached that level, while the majority who attended all classes may have earned a B-plus. Without specific data, this choice assumes too much.

B. This doesn’t necessarily follow. The statement could still be true even if only one student scored below a B-minus, and 1,000 others earned B-minus or better. The data allows for that possibility, so this choice isn't guaranteed.

C. This one is tricky and resembles E. The stimulus says that every student who scored below a B-minus missed at least one class. But it says nothing about students who scored exactly a B-minus. Therefore, this choice should have referred to students who scored B-minus or higher to be accurate.

D. This isn’t necessarily true. If all students who earned B-minus or higher had perfect attendance, that would still satisfy “most.” Since “most” can mean nearly all or even all, we can’t conclude otherwise from the information provided.

E. Correct. Based on the stimulus, if most students attended all classes and none of the students who scored below a B-minus had perfect attendance, then it must be that most students earned at least a B-minus. This follows logically from the given conditions.

All actual LSAT® content reproduced within this work is used with the permission of Law School Admission Council, Inc., (LSAC®) Box 40, Newtown, PA 18940, the copyright owner. LSAC does not review or endorse specific test-preparation materials, companies, or services, and inclusion of licensed LSAT Content within this work does not imply the review or endorsement of LSAC. LSAT (including variations) and LSAC are registered trademarks of LSAC.