LSAT Practice Assumptions
Now it’s time to put your knowledge of LSAT assumption questions into practice. We’re going to show you LSAT assumption questions that are just like the ones you will find on the actual LSAT test.
This is the fourth in a series of lesson articles introducing you to LSAT Assumption Questions. The series includes:
- LSAT Assumption Questions: an introduction
- Discovering LSAT Assumptions
- The Denial Test
- LSAT Practice Assumptions
- LSAT Assumption Secrets
LSAT Practice Assumptions
As you try the following questions, remember to use the four-step TestSherpa method:
- read the question first
- read and paraphrase the stimulus
- come up with a prephrase answer
- read and eliminate the answer choices.
Take the time to answer each of these questions using the TestSherpa method before you read the explanations.
Smart track coaches know better than to force rigid training programs on marathon runners. Running the marathon is an individual accomplishment; what works for one runner may not work for another. A marathon runner needs encouragement to find a unique path and set individual goals. Only marathon runners with groundbreaking ideas about technique can truly succeed.
The author of the argument assumes which of the following?
(A) Most runners who are not given training programs succeed in the marathon.
(B) Coaches with too many runners to instruct cannot afford to teach each runner as an individual.
(C) A runner who is given a rigid training program cannot succeed in the marathon.
(D) Many respected coaches do not use a rigid training program for their marathon runners.
(E) Many marathon runners would prefer a tried and true training program than to have to learn by their own mistakes.
Let’s break this down according to the TestSherpa four-step method. First, by reading the question stem, you know this is an assumption question. If this were in a test booklet and not online, you would circle the word “assumes” to reinforce that in your mind. Since this is an assumption question, we know before we even read the stimulus that we’re looking for a gap in the reasoning. Get ready, here comes a red flag.
Second, you need to read and paraphrase the stimulus. Paraphrasing is the key. It’s easier to understand your words than it is the test maker’s words. You might have come up with a paraphrase like this:
Don’t use rigid programs — encourage individuality to win
+
(some assumption we’re supposed to figure out)
=
Only runners with groundbreaking ideas win
Third, you form a prephrase of what you think the answer would sound like — in this case, the central assumption. This is where intuition and bridge building come in. As you read the argument, a red flag might pop up. In this case, you might have asked, “don’t most runners do a combination of both in some sort of training program that considers their individual needs?” That leads you to a big red flag. What about runner’s whose individual plan would pretty much match the training program anyway? Wouldn’t they win too?
You might have also been bothered by the new terms brought up in the conclusion, “groundbreaking ideas.” What is the connection between individuality and groundbreaking ideas? The author doesn’t say.
So, to form a bridge, take a look at what is similar and dissimilar in the premises and conclusion. You don’t need to bridge runner to runner. You don’t need to bridge winning to winning. You need to bridge rigid programs to winning with groundbreaking ideas. A good prephrased assumption would sound something like this: you cannot win with groundbreaking ideas if you are given a rigid training plan.
The fourth and final step of the TestSherpa four-step method is to consider the answer choices. With some luck, you the right answer will jump out at you because it matches your prephrase. The test maker can throw you a curve, however, and you might need to eliminate wrong answer choices. Let’s consider the answer choices one-by-one.
(A) Most runners who are not given training programs succeed in the marathon.
This answer distorts the author’s viewpoint. As you will see in the formal logic lesson, this is a confusion of necessary and sufficient. The argument says that in order to succeed as a runner, you need to stay away from rigid training programs and encourage individuality; however, that doesn’t guarantee success. There are probably lots of other things you need to do to succeed as well, like running many miles.
Now, just for kicks, try the denial test: Most runners who are not given training programs do not succeed in the marathon. So what? That’s probably true, since the majority of runners don’t succeed in the marathon anyway. It has no effect on the argument, so it must not be the central assumption.
(B) Coaches with too many runners to instruct cannot afford to teach each runner as an individual.
This is out of scope. It doesn’t matter what kind of resources busy coaches have. Maybe some coaches can only afford to use rigid training methods. The author would say, “so what, those runners won’t succeed, but it doesn’t hurt my argument.” Likewise, the denial test doesn’t affect the argument either: Coaches with too many runners to instruct can afford to teach each runner as an individual. The author would say, “great, those people have a chance to succeed.” But it doesn’t say anything about the argument. I cannot be the central assumption.
(C) A runner who is given a rigid training program cannot succeed in the marathon.
Remember our prephrase: you cannot win with groundbreaking ideas if you are given a rigid training plan. This is pretty close and is in fact the right answer. It doesn’t mention groundbreaking ideas, but it expresses the same idea. You cannot win with a rigid training plan. Try the denial: A runner who is given a rigid training program can succeed in the marathon. That would destroy the argument if true, so this must be the right answer.
(D) Many respected coaches do not use a rigid training program for their marathon runners.
This is out of scope in the same way that (B) is. Given what we know from the argument, who knows and who cares what respected coaches do? Try the denial. Even if respected coaches do use a rigid training program, it doesn’t hurt the argument. The author would just say that those coaches are doing the wrong thing.
(E) Many marathon runners would prefer a tried and true training program than to have to learn by their own mistakes.
Again, this is out of scope. Who cares what marathon runners want. The author is arguing that a certain kind of program works, regardless of what the runners prefer.
Assumptions are the negative space of an argument. It’s the missing piece of evidence, the gap in the argument, the unstated but assumed inference. You can find the assumption by bridging the evidence to the conclusion and trying to understand what is missing. In many cases the LSAT uses flawed assumptions, so you can also ask yourself “what’s wrong with this argument,” or “what is the red flag?”
In an assumption question, your task is to find that bridge or that red flag. The LSAT can ask an assumption in any number of ways. Here is a sampling of assumption questions. When you get one of these, you know your job is simply to identify the assumption.
- John’s statement assumes which of the following?
- The above argument relies on the assumption that…
- The conclusion above is correct if one assumes which one of the following?
- Which one of the following statements is the author taking for granted in the above argument?
- Which one of the following is an argument on which the author relies?
Next we’ll conclude our practice and recap our LSAT Assumption Secrets.