FREE LSAT POP QUIZ ANSWERS
Here are the answers to the pop quiz that you just took!
Question 1
Stimulus: Every morning, Jenna drinks a cup of green tea, believing it helps her stay focused during work. Recently, Jenna forgot to drink her tea one morning but still reported feeling just as focused as usual. Based on this, her coworker concludes that green tea does not actually help Jenna stay focused.
Question Stem: Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the coworker’s conclusion?
Answer Choices:
(A) Jenna drinks green tea because she enjoys the taste.
🚫 Irrelevant.
This explains her motivation for drinking green tea but says nothing about whether it actually affects her focus. It does not address the logic of the coworker’s conclusion.
(B) Jenna had an unusually light workload on the day she forgot her tea.
✅ This directly weakens the conclusion.
If Jenna had a much easier day, then her ability to stay focused may not reflect whether or not the tea helps — the situation was not comparable to normal days. It introduces an alternative explanation for her focus.
(C) Jenna typically feels focused even when she skips breakfast.
🚫 Misleading comparison.
Skipping breakfast isn’t the same as skipping green tea, so this doesn’t address whether tea helps with focus. It introduces irrelevant background info rather than weakening the conclusion.
(D) Green tea is known to have health benefits beyond improving focus.
🚫 Out of scope.
Even if green tea has other benefits, the coworker’s conclusion is specifically about its effect on focus. This does nothing to address or weaken that point.
(E) Other coworkers also drink green tea to stay focused.
🚫 Weak support, not a weakness.
This might suggest that some people believe green tea helps, but it doesn’t provide evidence that it actually works for Jenna, nor does it explain her experience that day. It’s too general to weaken the conclusion.
Question 2
Stimulus: A recent study found that employees who worked from home at least three days a week reported higher job satisfaction than those who worked entirely in the office. The researchers concluded that remote work increases job satisfaction.
Question Stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the researchers’ conclusion?
Answer Choices:
(A) Employees who worked from home reported fewer interruptions and had more control over their daily schedules.
✅ This directly strengthens the causal link.
It provides a specific mechanism for why remote work might increase satisfaction — fewer interruptions and more control are well-known drivers of job satisfaction, reinforcing that remote work itself is responsible for the boost.
(B) Many companies that offer remote work options also provide generous vacation and sick leave policies.
🚫 Weakens or introduces an alternative explanation.
This implies that other benefits, not remote work itself, might be the real reason for higher satisfaction. It creates confounding variables, undermining the conclusion rather than strengthening it.
(C) Some employees who worked remotely said they missed casual interactions with coworkers.
🚫 Mildly weakens or distracts.
This highlights a potential downside of remote work, which could actually reduce satisfaction. It does not support the claim that remote work increases satisfaction and might even cast doubt on it.
(D) Job satisfaction is difficult to measure objectively.
🚫 Irrelevant to causal reasoning.
This challenges the methodology of the study rather than supporting or weakening the conclusion. It doesn’t tell us whether remote work actually causes higher satisfaction.
(E) The majority of remote workers had previously requested flexible schedules.
🚫 Doesn’t support the causal link.
This suggests that more satisfied people may have self-selected into remote work, which could mean the type of person, not the work setup, explains the higher satisfaction. This points toward a reverse causation possibility, not a strengthening.
Question 3
Stimulus: A recent study revealed that individuals who regularly engage in strategic board games, such as chess, tend to perform better on formal assessments of logical reasoning than those who do not. The researchers concluded that playing such games enhances one’s logical reasoning ability.
Question Stem: Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning of the researchers?
Answer Choices:
(A) The researchers ignore the possibility that some individuals perform well on logic assessments without playing any board games.
🚫 Too weak and misses the core flaw.
Just because some people do well without playing games doesn’t undermine the claim that games improve reasoning. The issue isn’t about outliers; it’s about the logic of inferring causation from correlation.
(B) The researchers fail to distinguish between individuals who play strategic games frequently and those who only play occasionally.
🚫 Introduces irrelevant precision.
This suggests the researchers didn’t define frequency, but the main flaw is about the causal leap, not lack of detail. Whether someone plays often or occasionally doesn’t matter if the whole causal link is questionable.
(C) The researchers base their conclusion on evidence that may not apply to populations outside the sample studied.
🚫 Irrelevant to causal reasoning.
This challenges the methodology of the study rather than supporting or weakening the conclusion. It doesn’t tell us whether remote work actually causes higher satisfaction.
(D) The researchers conclude that an activity improves a skill based solely on an observed association between participation in the activity and higher skill performance.
✅ This correctly identifies the flaw.
The researchers see a correlation and jump to a causal conclusion without ruling out other explanations (e.g., more logical people might be drawn to chess). It captures the classic correlation ≠ causation error.
(E) The researchers presume that performance on logical reasoning tests is an accurate reflection of general intelligence.
🚫 Doesn’t support the causal link.
This suggests that more satisfied people may have self-selected into remote work, which could mean the type of person, not the work setup, explains the higher satisfaction. This points toward a reverse causation possibility, not a strengthening.
Question 4
Stimulus: While many argue that artificial sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar, recent research suggests that consuming artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body’s ability to regulate hunger and metabolism. Some nutritionists counter that these sweeteners are still preferable for individuals managing diabetes, as they do not cause immediate blood sugar spikes. However, relying on artificial sweeteners to maintain metabolic health may lead to long-term complications. Therefore, even though artificial sweeteners may offer short-term advantages for certain individuals, they should not be viewed as a broadly healthier substitute for sugar.
Question Stem: Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
Answer Choices:
(A) Artificial sweeteners can cause disruptions in hunger and metabolism regulation.
🚫 This is supporting evidence, not the conclusion.
This fact is used to challenge the idea that sweeteners are healthier, but it’s just one piece of evidence — not the author’s final claim. It supports the conclusion, but is not the conclusion itself.
(B) For individuals managing diabetes, artificial sweeteners may still provide short-term benefits.
🚫 A concession, not a conclusion.
This acknowledges a counterpoint to the author’s position. It’s included to be fair and balanced, but the argument ultimately rejects this benefit as a reason to accept sweeteners as broadly healthier.
(C) The belief that artificial sweeteners are healthier than sugar is based on an incomplete understanding of their long-term effects.
🚫 Sounds critical, but it’s an intermediate point.
This explains why people might be mistaken — it supports the idea that artificial sweeteners shouldn’t be seen as healthier, but it’s not the main takeaway the author is emphasizing.
(D) Despite offering some short-term benefits, artificial sweeteners should not be considered a generally healthier alternative to sugar.
✅ This is the main conclusion the argument is building toward.
The rest of the paragraph presents competing views and evidence, and this sentence synthesizes that information into the author’s final judgment. It’s the only choice that reflects the overall argumentative purpose.
(E) Artificial sweeteners do not cause immediate spikes in blood sugar the way regular sugar does.
🚫 Another piece of evidence — from the opposing viewpoint.
This supports the nutritionists’ position, which the author acknowledges but ultimately disagrees with. So this cannot be the author’s main conclusion.
Question 5
Stimulus:
Emily argues that her friend should not buy a used car just because it is inexpensive. She points out that although the car may cost less upfront, it has a history of mechanical problems and will likely require expensive repairs. Therefore, she concludes, the low price does not make it a good deal overall.
Question Stem: Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to Emily’s argument?
Answer Choices:
(A) A student decides not to apply to a college with low tuition because it does not offer the program she wants to study.
🚫 Different reasoning structure.
This is about missing a key feature (academic program), not about hidden future costs making a seemingly good deal worse. The tuition price is not misleading — it’s just irrelevant to her goals.
(B) A shopper buys an expensive coat because it is high quality and will last for years.
🚫 Opposite structure.
This is an example of justifying a high price because of long-term value, not rejecting a low price due to future costs. It’s still about evaluating total value — but from the other direction.
(C) A homeowner replaces an old roof even though it still functions, fearing it will become more costly to maintain in the future.
🚫 Different type of judgment.
This is about preventing future costs through a proactive investment, not about rejecting a seemingly good deal because of hidden costs. It’s forward-thinking maintenance, not misleading savings.
(D) A tourist cancels a low-cost flight after realizing it arrives at an airport far from her final destination, requiring costly ground transportation.
✅ Perfect match.
The flight looks cheap upfront, but hidden costs (extra travel from the distant airport) make it a bad overall deal. This mirrors Emily’s logic exactly: don’t be misled by initial savings if there are predictable extra costs.
(E) A man chooses not to take a job with a high salary because the job requires long hours and extensive travel, which would affect his quality of life.
🚫 Close, but not quite parallel.
This involves trade-offs, but the costs are non-monetary (lifestyle sacrifices) and not hidden or deferred. It’s more about personal values than future financial downside negating an apparent benefit.