Hardest Questions Archive
Hardest LSAT practice questions: September 2026
Five hard original questions from September. Notice how many of them turn on one skipped step: a link the argument needs but never states. Finding the missing link is the whole game at this difficulty.
These are original practice questions written for LSATPathway. They are not from any real LSAT and do not predict your score.
Question 1 (Necessary assumption)
Dr. Alvarez's study found that students who handwrite their notes retain more of the material than students who type their notes. The school board therefore concluded that requiring handwritten notes in all classes will raise test scores district-wide.
The board's conclusion requires the assumption that
- greater retention of material leads to higher test scores
- all students are physically able to handwrite quickly
- typing notes has no educational benefits at all
- the study included a large number of students
- no student in the district already handwrites notes
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
The study is about retention; the conclusion is about test scores. The argument needs the bridge between them. Negation test: if greater retention did NOT lead to higher scores, the conclusion collapses. The other choices are either too strong (B, C) or irrelevant to the logic (D, E).
Question 2 (Flaw)
A survey of readers of Gourmet Trails magazine found that 90 percent prefer independent restaurants to chains. Clearly, most diners prefer independent restaurants.
The reasoning is flawed because it
- draws a conclusion about all diners from a sample unlikely to represent them
- confuses a correlation between magazine readership and taste with a cause
- attacks the magazine's readers instead of addressing their preferences
- uses the word "prefer" in two different senses
- relies on a survey that is now too old to be trustworthy
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
Magazine readers who chose a food magazine are nothing like diners in general. The sample is self-selected and unrepresentative, so "most diners" is unsupported. There is no causal claim (B), no personal attack (C), no shifted meaning (D), and no date given for the survey (E).
Question 3 (Strengthen)
Researchers hypothesize that emissions from the new factory caused the decline in the lake's fish population. The decline began the year the factory opened, and investigators found no other major changes near the lake in that period.
Which of the following would most strengthen the hypothesis?
- Lakes near similar factories with the same emissions show the same decline, while comparable lakes without such factories do not.
- The factory is the largest employer in the region.
- Fish populations in the lake had been stable for decades before the factory opened.
- The factory's owners deny that their emissions could harm fish.
- Some residents believe the lake was already unhealthy before the factory arrived.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
Choice A adds the two things a causal claim needs: the effect appears where the suspected cause is present and does not appear where it is absent. Choice C helps a little but the stimulus already implies it. Choice B is irrelevant, D is a denial without evidence, and E weakens.
Question 4 (Inference)
If the bridge is repaired, then the detour will be lifted. The detour will be lifted only if the safety inspection passes. The safety inspection did not pass.
Which of the following must be true?
- The bridge was not repaired.
- The bridge will never be repaired.
- The detour will be lifted soon.
- The inspection was conducted unfairly.
- The bridge is unsafe.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
Chain it: repaired implies detour lifted; detour lifted implies inspection passed. Contrapositive: inspection failed, so the detour was not lifted, so the bridge was not repaired. Choice B goes too far (never). Choice C contradicts the premises. D and E add claims not supported by the logic.
Question 5 (Role of a statement)
Marsh's proposal to fluoridate the water should be rejected. The proposal comes from a dentist who owns stock in a fluoride supplier, so his support is self-interested. Moreover, neighboring towns that fluoridated their water saw no dental improvement.
The claim that the proposal comes from a dentist who owns stock in a fluoride supplier plays which role in the argument?
- It is offered as a reason to distrust the proponent rather than to engage with the proposal's merits.
- It is the argument's main conclusion.
- It is a general principle used to justify the conclusion.
- It is evidence that fluoridation does not improve dental health.
- It is an objection that the argument considers and then answers.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
The stock-ownership claim is used to discredit Marsh, not to address whether fluoridation works. The actual evidence against the proposal is the neighboring-towns point. The claim is not the conclusion (B), not a principle (C), not about dental outcomes (D), and it is never answered (E).
Want harder questions matched to your level?
The free diagnostic finds your ceiling, then drills push just past it.