Easy LSAT Strengthen Questions With Answers Practice Questions

Easy LSAT Strengthen Questions With Answers Practice Questions

Logical reasoning sections on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) frequently require you to identify the piece of information that makes a specific argument more likely to be valid. Identifying Easy LSAT Strengthen Questions With Answers helps students build the foundational skills needed for more complex logical analysis. These questions provide a conclusion based on a set of premises, and your task is to select an answer choice that bolsters the link between those premises and the conclusion. According to the Law School Admission Council, logical reasoning accounts for approximately 50% of your scored sections, making this question type essential for a competitive score.

Concept Explanation

LSAT strengthen questions ask you to select the answer choice that provides the most support for the author's conclusion. In these problems, the argument is usually flawed or contains a logical gap. To strengthen the argument, you must find a fact that closes that gap, provides additional evidence for the conclusion, or eliminates a potential counter-objection. Unlike "Must Be True" questions, the information in the answer choices is treated as new, external evidence. The correct answer does not need to prove the conclusion beyond a shadow of a doubt; it simply needs to make the conclusion more probable than it was before. Utilizing LSAT Prep resources can help you distinguish between a strengthener and a simple restatement of a premise. When evaluating options, look for choices that affirm the relationship between the evidence provided and the final claim made by the author.

Solved Examples

1. The Coffee Shop Example

   Argument: The local coffee shop, "Bean There," recently increased its prices by $1.00 per cup. Therefore, the shop's total profits will likely increase next month.

   Step-by-step Solution:

   1. Identify the conclusion: Profits will increase next month.
   2. Identify the premise: Prices increased by $1.00.
   3. Identify the gap: The argument assumes that customers will continue to buy the same amount of coffee despite the higher price.
   4. Find a strengthener: An answer choice stating that "Bean There has no local competitors and its customers are highly loyal" would strengthen the argument by suggesting volume will not drop.
2. The Exercise Example

   Argument: Recent studies show that people who walk for 30 minutes a day have lower blood pressure than those who do not. Thus, walking for 30 minutes a day causes a reduction in blood pressure.

   Step-by-step Solution:

   1. Identify the conclusion: Walking causes the reduction in blood pressure.
   2. Identify the premise: A correlation exists between walking and lower blood pressure.
   3. Identify the gap: This is a correlation vs. causation flaw. Perhaps people with lower blood pressure are simply more likely to feel like walking.
   4. Find a strengthener: A study showing that individuals who started walking 30 minutes a day saw their blood pressure drop significantly within a month strengthens the causal claim.
3. The Rare Bird Example

   Argument: A rare bird species was spotted in the northern forest for the first time in fifty years. This proves that the forest's ecosystem has fully recovered from the pollution of the 1970s.

   Step-by-step Solution:

   1. Identify the conclusion: The ecosystem has fully recovered.
   2. Identify the premise: A rare bird was spotted.
   3. Identify the gap: One bird sighting might be an anomaly or the bird might be passing through; it doesn't necessarily mean the whole ecosystem is healthy.
   4. Find a strengthener: An answer choice stating that "This rare bird species can only survive in environments with perfectly clean water and diverse insect populations" strengthens the link between the bird's presence and the health of the ecosystem.

Practice Questions

1. A new law requires all cyclists to wear helmets. Since the law was passed, the number of head injuries reported at local hospitals has decreased. Therefore, the helmet law is effective at reducing cycling-related injuries.

2. The city council plans to build a new park in the downtown area. They argue that the park will increase local property values because similar parks in other cities have had this effect.

3. A tech company released a software update designed to improve battery life. A survey of 100 users showed that 80% noticed their phones lasted longer. The company concluded the update was a success.

4. Scientists found that students who listen to classical music while studying score higher on exams. They concluded that classical music enhances cognitive performance during learning.

5. The mayor claims that the new high-speed rail will reduce traffic congestion because it provides a faster alternative to driving. However, critics say people enjoy the privacy of their cars too much to switch.

6. An organic farm claims its vegetables are healthier because they contain no synthetic pesticides. A recent study found that people who eat organic vegetables have lower levels of toxins in their blood.

7. A novelist’s latest book sold twice as many copies as her previous one. The publisher claims this is due to a new social media marketing campaign.

8. A school district implemented a new math curriculum. Test scores rose by 10% in one year. The district superintendent credited the new curriculum for this improvement.

Answers & Explanations

1. Answer: The number of people cycling did not decrease after the law was passed. Explanation: If fewer people were cycling, the drop in injuries could be due to lower participation rather than the helmets. Ruling out this alternative strengthens the claim that the law itself worked.
2. Answer: The downtown area has economic conditions similar to the cities where parks increased property values. Explanation: This strengthens the analogy by ensuring the comparison is valid. You can refine your comparative logic by reviewing reading exam questions which often use similar structures.
3. Answer: The 100 users surveyed were representative of the general population of phone users. Explanation: If the users were biased (e.g., they all had brand new phones), the survey wouldn't prove the software worked. Ensuring a representative sample strengthens the conclusion.
4. Answer: A follow-up study showed that students who did not previously listen to music saw their scores rise when they started listening to classical music. Explanation: This provides direct evidence of the change, supporting the causal link rather than just a correlation.
5. Answer: A survey indicates that 70% of local drivers would switch to the rail if it saved them 20 minutes of commuting time. Explanation: This directly counters the critics' objection and supports the mayor's claim that people will actually use the rail.
6. Answer: The study controlled for other lifestyle factors, such as general diet and exercise habits. Explanation: By eliminating other variables that could cause lower toxin levels, the link to organic vegetables is strengthened.
7. Answer: The novelist did not receive any more traditional media coverage (TV or radio) than she did for her previous book. Explanation: This rules out an alternative cause for the increase in sales, thereby strengthening the social media argument.
8. Answer: Other schools in the state that did not change their curriculum saw no increase in math scores. Explanation: This provides a "control group" effect, suggesting the curriculum was the specific reason for the rise in scores.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a strengthen question and a justify question?

A strengthen question only requires you to make the conclusion more likely, whereas a justify question (or "Sufficient Assumption") requires you to find an answer that makes the conclusion 100% logically valid. Strengtheners add support, but justify answers complete the logical proof.

Can the correct answer to a strengthen question be a weak statement?

Yes, because the goal is simply to make the argument stronger than it was before. Even a small piece of supporting evidence is better than no evidence or evidence that weakens the argument.

Should I look for the "missing link" in the argument?

Identifying the "gap" or "missing link" between the premises and the conclusion is the most effective strategy for these questions. Most correct answers will either bridge that gap or rule out a reason why the gap might be a problem.

How do I handle causal strengthen questions?

To strengthen a causal claim, look for answers that eliminate alternative causes, show the cause and effect appearing together, or show that when the cause is absent, the effect is also absent. You can practice these logic structures using the AI Question Generator for customized drills.

Is a restatement of a premise a good strengthener?

No, a restatement of a premise does not add new support to the argument. A strengthener must provide new information that makes the jump from the existing premises to the conclusion more plausible.