Examius
🌍 LSAT · flashcards
LSAT Analytical Reasoning Flashcards
50 question-and-answer cards covering Analytical Reasoning as it is examined in LSAT. 24 of them are printed below, taken from across the deck — no signup, no paywall on the preview.
24 sample cards from the Analytical Reasoning deck
Sampled from the end of the deck, so these are different cards from the ones shown on the syllabus page.
What is a "dual option" in a sequencing diagram?
A notation like $\frac{A}{B}$ placed in a slot showing that exactly one of two variables occupies that space, with the other occupying its paired slot.
When the rules produce very few valid overall arrangements, what technique is efficient?
Enumerating all possible "templates" (limited scenarios / worlds): drawing out each complete or near-complete arrangement so questions reduce to matching against a small list.
What triggers using the "limited options" (templates) approach?
A powerful rule that splits the game into two or three fundamentally different scenarios—such as a large block that fits only in a couple of places, or a variable restricted to two positions.
In question strategy, which question type should generally be answered first?
The "acceptability" (or "complete and accurate list") question, because you can apply each rule one at a time to eliminate answer choices without drawing a full diagram.
What is the efficient technique for an acceptability question?
Take one rule at a time and scan all five answer choices, eliminating any choice that violates it; the choice surviving every rule is correct.
What is a "must be true" question really asking, and how do you falsify wrong answers?
It asks for a statement true in every valid arrangement; you can eliminate a choice by finding a single valid arrangement in which that choice is false.
What is a "could be true" question asking?
It asks for a statement that is true in at least one valid arrangement; the correct answer is possible under the rules, while wrong answers are impossible (must be false).
What is the logical relationship between "must be true" and "cannot be true"?
They are negations of degree: "must be true" means true in all valid arrangements; "cannot be true" (must be false) means true in none. The complement of "cannot be true" is "could be true."
How should you approach a "local" (conditional) question that adds a new supposition like "If A is third..."?
Draw a fresh mini-diagram incorporating that new condition, cascade its consequences through the rules, then read the answer off the resulting arrangement.
Why should you not carry deductions from one local question into another?
Each local question's added condition ("if...") applies only to that question; carrying its hypothetical placements forward would import assumptions that need not hold in other questions.
What is a "rule substitution" question and how is it approached?
It asks which new rule would have the same effect as an original rule; the correct choice must produce exactly the same set of valid arrangements—no more permissive and no more restrictive.
What does a "maximum"/"minimum" question in a grouping game require?
Determining the greatest or least number of variables that can be selected (or placed in a group) consistent with all rules, usually by testing the numerical distributions.
How do you diagram "A and B cannot be together" in a grouping game?
As $A \to \lnot B$ (equivalently $B \to \lnot A$): if one is selected the other is out, so at most one of them appears.
How do you diagram "if A is out, then B is in" and what does it imply about A and B together?
As $\lnot A \to B$, contrapositive $\lnot B \to A$; it means at least one of A or B must be selected (they cannot both be out).
What is the difference between the rules "at least one of A/B" and "at most one of A/B"?
"At least one" ($\lnot A \to B$) forbids both being out; "at most one" ($A \to \lnot B$) forbids both being in. Together they would force exactly one (exclusive or).
In a sequencing game with the rule "exactly two variables are between A and B," how do you notate it?
As a spaced block $A\,\_\,\_\,B$ (or reversible $B\,\_\,\_\,A$ if order is unspecified), meaning A and B occupy positions three apart.
What is a "floater" (or random) variable, and why identify it?
A variable that appears in no rules; it can go almost anywhere, so identifying it helps you know which variable is flexible and often useful for creating counterexamples in "could be true" reasoning.
How do you diagram a "relative" ordering rule chain like "A before B, B before C, A before D"?
As a tree/branch structure: $A \to B \to C$ with a branch $A \to D$, showing A precedes all of B, C, and D while B, C, D's order among themselves may be partly open.
From the chain "A before B before C," what fixed facts can you extract?
A cannot be last and C cannot be first; A is before C (transitivity); and at least two variables must come after A and at least two before C, generating multiple not-laws.
What is the purpose of testing the answer choices in a "could be true EXCEPT" question?
Four choices are possible (could be true) and one is impossible (must be false); you seek the choice that cannot occur in any valid arrangement, which is the correct answer.
How do overloaded grouping games (more candidates than slots) generate inferences?
Because some variables must be excluded, "in" rules and mutual-exclusion rules force certain candidates out; tracking the fixed number selected pins down which must be in or out.
What is the recommended overall time strategy for the four games in an Analytical Reasoning section?
Roughly 8–9 minutes per game across a 35-minute, four-game section; invest extra time up front on inferences to make the questions faster, and consider game difficulty to choose an order.
Why is choosing the order in which to attempt the games a useful strategy?
Games vary in difficulty; doing easier, more concrete games first secures points and builds momentum, leaving harder or more abstract games for last so time pressure costs fewer points.
What single habit most improves accuracy across all logic game types?
Making and recording all available inferences on the master diagram before the questions, so that most questions are answered by reading the diagram rather than re-deriving deductions each time.
What this deck covers
The Analytical Reasoning deck follows the LSAT Analytical Reasoning syllabus — 3 chapters and 10 topics — so questions land on material that is genuinely examinable rather than trivia around it. That works out to roughly 16.7 cards per chapter.
Answers are written to be recallable, not just readable — averaging about 168 characters, which is long enough to carry the reasoning and short enough to say out loud.
A deck like this earns its keep on the second and third pass. Read the syllabus first so you know the shape of the subject, then use the cards to find the specific facts that have not stuck.
Analytical Reasoning flashcards FAQ
How many Analytical Reasoning flashcards are in this LSAT deck?
50 cards. This page previews 24 of them, sampled evenly across the deck so you can judge the difficulty before installing anything.
Are these LSAT flashcards free?
Yes. The preview here is free to read with no signup, and the full 50-card deck is free inside the Examius app.
What do the Analytical Reasoning cards cover?
They follow the LSAT Analytical Reasoning syllabus — 3 chapters and 10 topics — so the questions track what is actually examinable.
How should I use these flashcards?
Read the syllabus first so you know the shape of the subject, then drill the deck. Examius schedules each card with spaced repetition, so cards you keep missing come back sooner and ones you know drift further apart.