Hardest Questions Archive
Hardest LSAT practice questions: August 2026
Five hard original questions from August. These are the ones that separate careful readers from fast readers. Take them untimed, then read every explanation, including for the ones you got right.
These are original practice questions written for LSATPathway. They are not from any real LSAT and do not predict your score.
Question 1 (Flaw)
The city's new recycling program will succeed only if residents sort their waste correctly. The sanitation department has launched an education campaign, and the campaign will ensure that residents sort their waste correctly. Therefore, the program is guaranteed to succeed.
The reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- treats a condition required for success as though it guarantees success
- attacks the sanitation department instead of addressing its plan
- relies on survey data from an unrepresentative sample of residents
- uses the word "succeed" in two different senses
- draws a conclusion about the future from evidence that is too old to be relevant
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
Sorting correctly is necessary for success, not sufficient. The campaign delivers a requirement, and the argument treats it as a guarantee. Other things could still sink the program. Choice B describes an ad hominem that never happens. Nothing here relies on a survey (C), shifts word meaning (D), or uses old evidence (E).
Question 2 (Inference)
All of the conference's keynote speakers are published authors. Some published authors attending the conference are first-time speakers. None of the first-time speakers are keynote speakers.
Which of the following must be true?
- All keynote speakers are first-time speakers.
- Some published authors at the conference are not keynote speakers.
- No published author is a keynote speaker.
- All first-time speakers are published authors.
- Some first-time speakers are keynote speakers.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B
Some published authors are first-time speakers, and no first-time speaker is a keynote speaker, so those published authors cannot be keynote speakers. Choice A and E contradict the premises. Choice C contradicts the first premise. Choice D reverses the "some" statement, which you cannot do.
Question 3 (Weaken)
The town council claims that banning overnight parking on Main Street will reduce traffic accidents, pointing to data showing that towns with overnight parking bans have 20 percent fewer accidents on their main streets than towns without bans.
Which of the following most weakens the council's claim?
- Towns with parking bans also tend to have lower speed limits on their main streets.
- Some towns without parking bans have very few accidents on their main streets.
- The ban would be unpopular with residents who lack driveways.
- Overnight parking bans are difficult to enforce without additional police patrols.
- Traffic accidents on Main Street have risen steadily for five years.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
If ban towns also have lower speed limits, the speed limits could explain the fewer accidents. That alternative cause breaks the link between the ban and the result. Choice B is consistent with an overall trend. Choices C and D are about practicality, not about whether the ban reduces accidents. Choice E says nothing about the ban's effect.
Question 4 (Parallel reasoning)
No reptiles are warm-blooded. Some pets are warm-blooded. Therefore, some pets are not reptiles.
Which of the following exhibits the same pattern of reasoning?
- No contracts signed under duress are enforceable. Some agreements between these parties are enforceable. Therefore, some agreements between these parties are not contracts signed under duress.
- All valid tickets are stamped. Some stamped items are counterfeit. Therefore, some counterfeit items are valid tickets.
- No fish are mammals. Some mammals are pets. Therefore, some pets are not fish.
- All lawyers passed the bar. Some bar passers are judges. Therefore, some judges are lawyers.
- No desserts are healthy. Some healthy foods are expensive. Therefore, some expensive foods are not desserts.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
The original is: No A are B. Some C are B. Therefore some C are not A. Only choice A matches exactly. Choice C looks close but its second premise ("some mammals are pets") has the terms in different positions, making it invalid. Choices B and D affirm their conclusions illegitimately.
Question 5 (Point at issue)
Marisol: The new highway will cut commute times, because the current road is congested and congestion is the sole cause of long commutes here. Devon: Commute times will not fall, because the new highway will attract development that adds more cars than the highway can carry.
The point at issue between Marisol and Devon is whether
- the new highway will reduce commute times
- the current road is congested
- congestion is the sole cause of long commutes
- new highways attract development
- commute times are currently too long
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
Marisol says times will fall; Devon says they will not. That direct disagreement is the point at issue. Devon never disputes that the road is congested (B) or addresses the "sole cause" claim (C); he grants the congestion point and argues the highway creates a new problem. Choices D and E are not disputed by either speaker.
Want harder questions matched to your level?
The free diagnostic finds your ceiling, then drills push just past it.