Strongly Supported Inferences: LSAT Logical Reasoning Mastery
Master the art of identifying what's most strongly supported to excel in LSAT inference questions
Strongly supported inference questions test your ability to identify conclusions that are highly probable based on evidence—a critical skill in legal reasoning. According to the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), "drawing well-supported conclusions" from complex information is fundamental to success in law school and legal practice.
This comprehensive guide will teach you to distinguish between must be true and most strongly supported questions, apply inductive reasoning effectively, and maximize your accuracy on these high-yield LSAT questions. With 3-5 strongly supported questions per Logical Reasoning section, mastering this skill directly impacts your score.
Understanding Strongly Supported Inferences
A strongly supported inference is a conclusion that is highly likely or very probable based on the passage information, though not necessarily guaranteed with 100% certainty. These questions employ inductive reasoning—drawing probable conclusions from evidence—rather than the deductive reasoning used in must be true questions.
Reasoning Type Comparison
Deductive Reasoning
Premises → Conclusion
Certainty: 100% guaranteed
Logic: If premises true, conclusion must be true
Example: All lawyers study logic. Sarah is a lawyer. ∴ Sarah studies logic.
Inductive Reasoning
Evidence → Probable Conclusion
Certainty: Highly probable
Logic: If evidence true, conclusion very likely
Example: 95% of students passed. Sarah studied hard. ∴ Sarah probably passed.
Key Characteristics of Strongly Supported Inferences
- Highly probable: The answer is very likely true, though not absolutely certain
- Comparative strength: The correct answer is better supported than all alternatives
- Direct connection: Must be closely related to passage information, not speculative
- Reasonable extension: May go slightly beyond explicit statements if strongly implied
- Best explanation: Often provides the most reasonable explanation for patterns or facts
Must Be True vs. Most Strongly Supported
Understanding the crucial distinction between these two inference types is essential for LSAT success. While both ask you to draw conclusions from evidence, they employ fundamentally different standards of proof.
Detailed Comparison
🎯 Critical Distinction:
The word "most" in the question stem is your biggest clue. If you see "most strongly supported," "most reasonably concluded," or "best supported," you're dealing with inductive reasoning where high probability wins. Without "most," you need deductive certainty where the answer must be guaranteed.
Recognizing Strongly Supported Question Stems
Learning to instantly identify strongly supported questions helps you activate the appropriate reasoning strategy. Here are the most common phrasings from LSAC official materials:
Primary Stems
- "Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?"
- "The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?"
- "The information above provides the most support for which one of the following?"
Alternative Phrasings
- "Which one of the following can most reasonably be concluded on the basis of the information above?"
- "Which one of the following is best supported by the passage above?"
- "The passage most strongly supports which one of the following statements?"
⚠️ Key Indicator Words
These comparative and modal terms signal that you need inductive reasoning, not absolute proof.
Seven Proven Strategies for Strongly Supported Questions
Strategy 1: Accept the Stimulus as Fact
Unlike argument evaluation questions, strongly supported questions present information you must accept as true. Your job is to identify what follows from these facts, not to critique their validity.
The "Take as True" Approach:
- Don't question validity: Even if statements seem improbable, treat them as facts
- Don't add skepticism: If the passage says X causes Y, accept it for this question
- Focus on implications: Ask "What follows from this?" not "Is this true?"
- Use all information: Every detail might be relevant to the supported inference
💡 Example:
If the stimulus says "Companies with green logos are more profitable," don't think "That seems questionable." Instead, accept it and look for what this fact supports—perhaps that choosing a green logo could improve profitability.
Strategy 2: Look for Patterns and Correlations
Strongly supported questions often present patterns, trends, or correlations. The correct answer frequently explains or extends these patterns in a reasonable way.
What to Look For:
📊 Correlations:
"Whenever X increases, Y decreases" → Look for causal or explanatory relationships
📈 Trends:
"Over the past decade, rates have steadily risen" → Look for continuations or explanations
🔄 Comparisons:
"Group A differs from Group B in outcome X" → Look for explanatory factors
❓ Surprising Facts:
"Despite X, Y occurred" → Look for explanations that resolve the surprise
⚡ Pro Tip:
Strongly supported questions often reward answers that provide the "best explanation" for observed phenomena. If the passage describes an unusual pattern or correlation, consider which answer best accounts for it.
Strategy 3: Use Comparative Analysis
The correct answer doesn't need to be perfect—it just needs to be better supported than the other four choices. Think in terms of comparative strength.
Support Strength Spectrum
✓✓✓ Strongly Supported (Your Answer!)
Directly follows from passage facts. Explains patterns. Highly probable given evidence. Minimal to no logical leaps required.
✓✓ Moderately Supported
Some connection to passage. Plausible but requires assumptions. Could be true but not necessarily the best answer.
✓ Weakly Supported
Tangentially related. Requires multiple assumptions. Possible but not well-supported by passage evidence.
✗ Not Supported
Contradicts passage. Out of scope. Makes extreme claims beyond evidence. Introduces completely unrelated information.
🎯 Technique:
Rate each answer on a scale of 1-5 for how strongly it's supported. Even if your top choice seems only 70% certain, if the others are 20-30%, it's still the correct answer. Focus on relative strength, not absolute perfection.
Strategy 4: Recognize When Reasonable Inference is Acceptable
Unlike must be true questions, strongly supported questions allow for reasonable inferences that go slightly beyond explicit statements—as long as they're directly related and highly probable.
✓ Acceptable Inferences
- Best explanations for patterns
- Probable cause of correlation
- Likely continuation of trend
- Reasonable prediction
- Common-sense extension
✗ Unacceptable Inferences
- Speculation without basis
- Extreme generalizations
- Unrelated outside facts
- Multiple logical leaps
- Contradictory claims
📚 Example:
Passage: "Sales of electric vehicles rose 200% after gas prices doubled."
✓ Acceptable: "High gas prices likely contributed to increased electric vehicle sales." (Reasonable causal inference)
✗ Too far: "Electric vehicles are superior to gas vehicles." (Value judgment not supported)
Strategy 5: Eliminate Based on Scope and Strength
Efficient elimination is crucial. Remove answers that are out of scope, contradictory, or make claims too strong for the evidence provided.
Elimination Hierarchy:
1st Priority: Contradictory or Out of Scope
Eliminate immediately if it contradicts passage facts or discusses topics not mentioned.
2nd Priority: Too Strong or Extreme
Be suspicious of "always," "never," "all," "none" unless passage explicitly supports such strong claims.
3rd Priority: Weakly Connected
Eliminate if the connection to the passage is tenuous or requires multiple assumptions.
Keep: Directly Supported
The answer that remains should have clear, direct connection to passage information with minimal inferential leaps.
Strategy 6: Look for Explanatory Answers
Many strongly supported questions reward answers that explain why something occurred or why a pattern exists. These explanatory answers are often strongly supported even though they introduce new information.
Types of Explanatory Answers:
- Causal explanations: Why X led to Y
- Difference explanations: Why Group A differs from Group B
- Trend explanations: Why rates increased/decreased over time
- Correlation explanations: What accounts for the relationship between X and Y
- Anomaly explanations: Why unexpected result occurred
💡 Recognition Pattern:
If the passage presents a surprising correlation, unusual pattern, or unexpected outcome without explaining it, look for an answer choice that provides the most reasonable explanation. This is a classic strongly supported question structure.
Strategy 7: Predict Before Looking at Answers
After reading the stimulus, pause and predict what kind of inference might be supported. This prevents you from being swayed by attractive but incorrect answer choices.
Prediction Questions to Ask Yourself:
- "What pattern or trend does this passage establish?"
- "What might explain this correlation or difference?"
- "What's the logical next step or continuation?"
- "What would make sense given these facts?"
- "What's surprising here, and what could explain it?"
⚡ Pro Tip:
Your prediction doesn't need to be perfect or specific. Even a general sense like "I'm looking for an explanation of the sales increase" or "something about why Group A performed better" helps you evaluate answers more critically and efficiently.
Worked Example: LSAT-Style Strongly Supported Question
Sample Strongly Supported Question
Stimulus:
A recent study found that employees who take regular breaks throughout the workday report significantly higher job satisfaction than those who work continuously. Additionally, the study found that productivity levels were essentially the same for both groups. However, employees who took regular breaks reported feeling less mentally fatigued at the end of the workday.
Question:
Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
Pre-Answer Analysis:
Key Facts:
- Breaks → higher job satisfaction
- Breaks ≠ productivity change
- Breaks → less mental fatigue
Prediction:
Look for something about the benefits of breaks not harming productivity, or explaining why satisfaction increased.
Answer Choices Analysis:
❌ (A) Taking breaks makes employees more productive than working continuously
Why wrong: Contradicts the passage! The study found productivity was "essentially the same" for both groups, not higher for the breaks group.
❌ (B) All employees should be required to take regular breaks
Why wrong: Too strong and prescriptive. The passage describes correlations but doesn't support mandatory policy recommendations. This is a value judgment beyond the data.
✓ (C) Reduced mental fatigue may contribute to increased job satisfaction
Why correct: This is strongly supported as a reasonable explanation. The passage shows breaks correlate with BOTH less fatigue AND higher satisfaction. It's reasonable to infer that the reduction in fatigue may explain (contribute to) the satisfaction increase. The word "may" appropriately indicates probability, not certainty.
❌ (D) Employees who don't take breaks are less competent workers
Why wrong: Not supported at all. Competence isn't discussed, and since productivity was the same, there's no evidence for this negative judgment.
❌ (E) Mental fatigue is the only factor affecting job satisfaction
Why wrong: Way too extreme! "Only factor" is unsupported. The passage suggests one possible contributor, but doesn't exclude other factors. The word "only" makes this far too strong.
✅ Key Takeaways:
- This is classic strongly supported reasoning: connecting two correlated findings (reduced fatigue + higher satisfaction) with a causal explanation
- The correct answer uses "may contribute" (probabilistic language) rather than certainty
- Answer (C) introduces a new claim (fatigue causes satisfaction) but it's directly supported by the correlation
- Wrong answers were either contradictory (A), too extreme (B, E), or unsupported (D)
Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
❌ Mistake #1: Treating It Like a Must Be True Question
Many test-takers reject the correct answer because it's not 100% certain. Remember: strongly supported questions use inductive reasoning where high probability is sufficient.
Solution: Look for the word "most" in the question stem. If it's there, accept that reasonable probability (not certainty) is the standard.
❌ Mistake #2: Choosing Extreme or Absolute Answers
Answers with "always," "never," "only," "all," or "none" are rarely correct in strongly supported questions unless the passage explicitly uses such strong language.
Solution: Favor answers with qualifying language like "may," "likely," "probably," "some," or "can contribute to." These better match the probabilistic nature of inductive reasoning.
❌ Mistake #3: Rejecting Answers That Introduce New Information
Unlike must be true questions, strongly supported questions can and often do introduce reasonable inferences or explanations that go beyond what's explicitly stated.
Solution: Don't automatically eliminate answers with new concepts. Ask: "Is this new information directly related to the passage and reasonably supported by it?"
❌ Mistake #4: Selecting Based on Real-World Knowledge
Even though some outside inference is allowed, the answer must be supported by the passage itself, not by what you know about the topic from external sources.
Solution: Base your answer solely on passage information. If you can't draw a clear line from passage facts to the answer choice, it's probably wrong.
❌ Mistake #5: Forgetting Comparative Analysis
Sometimes test-takers find two answers that seem possible and get stuck. They forget that one doesn't need to be perfect—just better supported than the other.
Solution: When stuck between two answers, actively compare their support strength. Which one requires fewer assumptions? Which is more directly connected to passage facts? Choose the stronger one, even if imperfect.
Practice Strategies and Official Resources
How to Practice Strongly Supported Questions
📖 Use Official LSAC Materials
The Law School Admission Council is the only source for authentic LSAT questions. Third-party materials often fail to capture the subtle distinction between must be true and most strongly supported questions.
🎯 Targeted Practice Approach
- Separate question types: Practice must be true and strongly supported questions separately until you master the distinction
- Analyze question stems: Before reading the stimulus, identify which type of reasoning is required
- Make predictions: After reading the stimulus, pause to predict what might be supported before looking at answers
- Track patterns: Note whether you struggle more with explanatory answers, comparative answers, or predictive answers
- Review thoroughly: For each wrong answer, identify exactly where you went astray—was it scope, strength, or misunderstanding the standard?
💡 Advanced Practice Techniques
- Strength rating exercise: Rate each answer 1-5 for support strength, then compare your ratings to the correct answer
- Explanation drill: For questions with patterns/correlations, try to generate your own explanation before looking at answers
- Comparative analysis: When stuck between two answers, explicitly list what supports each one and compare
- Question stem practice: Review 20 question stems and categorize them as must be true vs. strongly supported based on keywords
⏱️ Time Management
Aim for 60-90 seconds per strongly supported question. These questions often take slightly longer than other types due to the need for comparative analysis, but don't exceed 90 seconds. If you're stuck, make your best guess and move on—you can always return if time permits.
Why Mastering Strongly Supported Inferences Matters
Strongly supported inference questions test skills that extend far beyond LSAT success—they mirror the type of reasoning lawyers use daily in legal practice and courtroom argumentation.
🎯 High-Frequency Questions
Strongly supported questions appear 6-10 times per test (combining both Logical Reasoning sections). Combined with must be true questions, inference questions account for roughly 20% of your Logical Reasoning score.
⚖️ Legal Practice Skills
According to LSAC, "drawing well-supported conclusions" is essential in legal reasoning. Lawyers regularly must determine what conclusions are most strongly supported by evidence—exactly what these questions test.
📈 Score Impact
Mastering the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning improves performance across multiple question types, not just inference questions. This fundamental skill boosts your overall Logical Reasoning performance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Ready to Master Strongly Supported Inferences?
Start practicing with official LSAC materials today and develop the inductive reasoning skills that drive LSAT success and legal excellence.
Additional LSAT Resources
📚 Official LSAC Resources
🎓 Free Practice Materials
🔗 RevisionTown Resources
Key Logical Reasoning Formulas
While LSAT Logical Reasoning doesn't use mathematical formulas, understanding these logical relationships helps you identify strongly supported inferences:
Support Strength Calculation
Support Strength = \(\frac{\text{Direct Evidence}}{\text{Required Assumptions}}\)
Higher values indicate stronger support. More direct evidence with fewer assumptions = stronger inference.
Probability of Correctness
\(P(\text{Correct}) = P(\text{Supported}) \times (1 - P(\text{Contradiction}))\)
The answer must have high support probability AND low contradiction probability.
Inference Distance Formula
\(D = n_{\text{logical steps}} + w \times n_{\text{assumptions}}\)
Where \(D\) = inference distance, \(n\) = number of steps/assumptions, \(w\) = weight factor. Lower distance = stronger support.
Comparative Support Evaluation
\(\text{Answer}_{\text{correct}} = \max_{i \in \{A,B,C,D,E\}} S_i\)
Where \(S_i\) = support score for answer \(i\). Choose the answer with maximum support, not necessarily perfect support.
Quick Reference Guide
✓ DO
- Accept stimulus as fact
- Look for "most" in stem
- Use comparative analysis
- Accept probability
- Predict before reading
✗ DON'T
- Demand 100% certainty
- Choose extreme answers
- Reject new information
- Use outside knowledge
- Critique stimulus validity
⚠️ WARNING SIGNS
- Always/Never/All/None
- Contradicts passage
- Completely out of scope
- Multiple logical leaps
- Value judgments
🎯 GOOD SIGNS
- May/Likely/Probably
- Explains patterns
- Direct connection
- Minimal assumptions
- Reasonable extension