Hardest Questions Archive
Hardest LSAT practice questions: October 2026
Five hard original questions from October. This set leans quantitative and structural: conditionals, percentages, and arguments that hide their shape. Slow down on each one. Speed is not being tested here.
These are original practice questions written for LSATPathway. They are not from any real LSAT and do not predict your score.
Question 1 (Flaw)
Dr. Chen holds a doctorate in literature. Doctors know best when it comes to health matters. So we should follow Dr. Chen's health advice.
The reasoning is flawed because it
- uses the word "doctor" in two different senses
- attacks Dr. Chen instead of addressing her claims
- generalizes from a single doctor to all doctors
- confuses a necessary condition with a sufficient condition
- relies on evidence that is too old to be relevant
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
"Doctor" means PhD holder in the premise and medical expert in the conclusion. The argument needs both meanings at once. No attack on Dr. Chen occurs (B). Nothing is generalized from a sample (C). The error is a shifted term, not a conditional mix-up (D).
Question 2 (Weaken)
Just as a coach is right to bench a player who repeatedly misses practice, a manager is right to fire an employee who arrives late to work a single time. In both cases, the person has shown they cannot be relied upon.
Which of the following most weakens the argument?
- A single late arrival, unlike repeated missed practices, does not establish a pattern of unreliability.
- Some coaches never bench players for missing practice.
- Many managers prefer warnings over immediate firing.
- Employees who arrive late once are often excellent workers overall.
- Coaches and managers have different responsibilities.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
The analogy equates repeated absences with one late arrival. Choice A breaks the analogy at exactly that point: the two situations differ in the very respect that matters, the pattern of unreliability. The other choices quibble around the edges without touching the comparison.
Question 3 (Sufficient assumption)
Every successful marathon requires months of training. Maya completed a marathon last spring. Therefore, Maya is a disciplined person.
Which of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion to follow logically?
- Anyone who trains for months is a disciplined person.
- Disciplined people usually train for months before a marathon.
- Maya enjoyed her months of training.
- Most marathon runners train for months.
- Training for months is sufficient for marathon success.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
Maya completed a marathon, so she trained for months. Choice A connects "trained for months" to "disciplined," completing the chain. Choice B gives the converse, which does not license the inference. Choices C, D, and E leave the gap open.
Question 4 (Inference)
Last year, 30 percent of the town's 1,000 households owned an electric car. This year, 40 percent of the town's 1,500 households own one.
Which of the following must be true?
- More households own electric cars this year than last year.
- Electric car ownership is rising in neighboring towns.
- A majority of households will own electric cars next year.
- The percentage increase means the town cares more about the environment.
- Fewer households own gasoline cars this year than last year.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
Do the arithmetic: 30 percent of 1,000 is 300; 40 percent of 1,500 is 600. More households own electric cars this year, guaranteed. The other choices go beyond the numbers: neighboring towns (B), next year (C), motives (D), and gasoline cars, about which nothing is said (E).
Question 5 (Principle)
Editor: The newspaper should not publish the candidate's medical records. The public's right to know does not extend to private health details that do not affect job performance, and these records contain nothing relevant to the office the candidate seeks.
Which of the following principles best justifies the editor's reasoning?
- A newspaper should withhold a candidate's private information unless it bears on fitness for office.
- A candidate's medical history should never be published under any circumstances.
- The public has an absolute right to know everything about a candidate.
- Newspapers should publish whatever increases readership.
- Private health details are always relevant to a candidate's fitness for office.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A
The editor's reasoning turns on relevance to the office: no relevance, no publication. Choice A captures exactly that conditional rule. Choice B is too absolute (the editor allows publication when relevant). Choices C, D, and E contradict the argument.
Want harder questions matched to your level?
The free diagnostic finds your ceiling, then drills push just past it.