Down to Two? One Is Still Wrong.

There is one right answer and four wrong ones. Your job isn't to choose the answer that sounds smartest or feels most convincing. It's to figure out which answer does exactly what the question asks, and why the other four don't.

Narrowing a question to two answers doesn't mean you've found two equally valid choices. It means you haven't identified the deciding difference yet.

Don't ask, "Which one do I like more?" Ask:

1. What exactly is this question asking me to establish? Not "what sounds right." What task does the question stem assign?
2. Which answer satisfies that task? Match the answer to the job, word by word.
3. Where does the other answer fail? Not "why is it less good." Where, specifically, does it break?

The wrong answer might contain something true. It might sound reasonable. It might even answer a different question perfectly. But that doesn't make it correct for this question.

Walkthrough 1: The tempting critique that misses the point

The argument: The city's new bike-share program has been a clear success. In its first year, ridership exceeded projections by 40%, and surveys show 85% of users are satisfied. Clearly, expanding the program to twice as many stations will double its benefits.

Question: The reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...

1. takes a correlation between ridership and satisfaction to prove that the program caused both
2. assumes that a program's past success guarantees proportional success at a larger scale
3. relies on survey results that may not reflect the views of all city residents
4. fails to consider whether expanding the program will increase operating costs
5. presumes without justification that user satisfaction is the only valid measure of success

Most students get this down to B vs. C. C feels smart. Questioning survey methodology sounds like exactly the kind of critical thinking the LSAT rewards. But watch what happens when you run the three questions.

What is this question asking? Find the flaw in the reasoning. The argument's move is: first year went well, therefore doubling the program doubles the benefits. The vulnerable point is the scaling inference.

Which answer satisfies that task? B names it exactly. Nothing about the first year's success guarantees that twice the stations means twice the benefits. Maybe the best locations are already taken. Maybe demand saturates. The argument just assumes the ratio holds.

Where does C fail? Here's the exact reason each wrong answer fails:

• A fails because no causal inference from correlation happens here. The argument never claims ridership caused satisfaction or the reverse. It treats them as two separate success indicators.
• C fails because survey representativeness isn't this argument's flaw. Even with a flawless survey, the conclusion about scaling wouldn't follow. C critiques the evidence's accuracy; the real problem is what the argument does with the evidence.
• D fails because operating costs are a practical consideration, not a logical flaw in the inference. An argument can be expensive and still valid, or cheap and still fallacious. D changes the subject from "does the conclusion follow" to "is this a good idea."
• E fails because the argument never claims satisfaction is the only measure. It cites ridership too. E attacks a claim that was never made.

C is the classic down-to-two trap: it contains something true (surveys can be unrepresentative) and it sounds like criticism. But "true" and "critical-sounding" aren't the task. The task is naming this argument's flaw.

Walkthrough 2: The strengthener disguised as an assumption

The argument: Dr. Chen's study found that students who handwrite notes retain more information than students who type their notes. Therefore, schools should ban laptops in lecture halls to improve learning outcomes.

Question: Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

1. Handwriting notes is the single most effective study method available to students.
2. Chen's finding about handwriting has been replicated in multiple independent studies.
3. If laptops were banned, students would handwrite notes rather than simply taking no notes at all.
4. Typed notes provide no benefit whatsoever for learning.
5. Most schools currently permit laptops in lecture halls.

The down-to-two here is usually B vs. C. B feels reassuring. More studies, more confidence, stronger argument. And that's exactly the problem: B makes the argument stronger, but the question doesn't ask what would strengthen it. It asks what the argument requires.

What is this question asking? Find the load-bearing assumption. The kind you can test by negation: if it's false, the conclusion collapses.

Which answer satisfies that task? C. Negate it: banned laptops lead students to take no notes at all. Then the handwriting advantage never enters the picture, and the ban doesn't improve outcomes. The conclusion falls apart without C.

Where does each wrong answer fail?

• A fails on scope. "Single most effective" is far stronger than the argument needs. Handwriting only has to beat typing, not beat everything.
• B fails because replication is a bonus, not a requirement. The argument's logic goes through on one valid study. B would make you more confident in the premise, but the conclusion doesn't depend on it.
• D fails on extremity. "No benefit whatsoever" overshoots. Typing could be somewhat useful and handwriting still better. The argument needs a comparative edge, not typing's total worthlessness.
• E fails because it concerns whether the recommendation is actionable, not whether the reasoning is valid. The logic works identically whether schools currently allow laptops or not.

The rule to take with you

If both answers still look right, that's where the work is. You don't need more confidence in your guess. You need to find the distinction you're missing.

Next time you're down to two, stop comparing how the answers feel. Instead:

1. Cover the answers. State in your own words what the question is asking.
2. Uncover them. Eliminate the one that answers a different question, makes a stronger claim than needed, or critiques something the argument didn't do.
3. Before you commit, say out loud why the other four are wrong. If you can't, you're guessing, and you should mark it for blind review.

Run every flagged question through the wrong-answer review worksheet afterward. Field 6, "why my answer is wrong," is where this skill gets built. And if your worksheet keeps showing the same trap week after week, that's exactly what 1:1 tutoring is for: someone who spots your recurring mistakes faster than you can on your own.

More study skills

• Why you keep making the same mistake
• Your score drops when timed
• Wrong-answer review worksheet
• Free LSAT prep hub