Identify the Role: Master LSAT Argument Part Questions

Learn proven strategies to determine statement function, map argument structure, and ace identify the role questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section with official examples and expert techniques.

Identify the role questions, also known as argument part questions, are a unique question type in the LSAT Logical Reasoning section that test your ability to determine the function or purpose of a specific statement within an argument. Unlike other question types that focus on content or validity, these questions ask you to describe what job a particular claim performs in the overall argumentative structure.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) includes role identification questions to assess your capacity to deconstruct arguments into their component parts and understand how those parts relate to each other—a critical skill for legal reasoning. Success requires recognizing whether a statement serves as the main conclusion, a premise supporting that conclusion, an intermediate conclusion, an objection being addressed, or another structural element.

What Are Identify the Role Questions

Role questions present an argument and then ask you to identify the function of a specific, highlighted statement within that argument. The challenge is not determining whether the statement is true or whether the argument is valid, but rather understanding what job the statement performs in the argumentative structure.

📌 Common Question Stems

"The claim that [statement] plays which one of the following roles in the argument?"
"Which of the following most accurately describes the role played by the claim that [statement]?"
"The statement that [statement] serves which one of the following functions in the argument?"
"In the argument, the claim that [statement] is used to..."
"The statement that [statement] figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?"

Key Characteristics of Role Questions

Identify the role questions have several distinguishing features that make them instantly recognizable:

Quote a specific statement: The question stem always references or quotes the exact statement you need to analyze
Focus on function, not content: You're determining what the statement does, not what it says or whether it's true
Require structural analysis: Success depends on mapping the entire argument's structure, not just understanding the quoted statement
Use abstract language: Answer choices employ general terms like "premise," "conclusion," "intermediate conclusion," "objection," or "background"
Test relationships: The core skill is understanding how the statement relates to other claims, especially the main conclusion

The Fundamental Equation

Statement Role = Function in Argument Structure

Ask "What is this statement doing?" not "What is this statement saying?"

Official Example Analysis

Let's examine an official LSAT-style role question from Khan Academy's official LSAT prep materials to understand this question type in practice:

📚 Official Khan Academy Example

Does the position of a car driver's seat have a significant impact on driving safety? It probably does. Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly. A driver who is uncomfortable eventually becomes fatigued, which makes it difficult to concentrate on the road. Likewise, the better the visibility from the driver's seat, the more aware the driver can be of road conditions and other vehicles.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly?

It is the conclusion drawn in the argument.
It is a claim that the argument shows to be inconsistent with available evidence.
It is used to provide a causal explanation for an observed phenomenon.
It describes evidence that the argument ultimately refutes.
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion drawn in the argument. ✓

Step-by-Step Analysis

Step 1: Mark the Statement in Question

Before reading the argument, identify and highlight the statement: "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly."

Step 2: Identify the Main Conclusion

The main conclusion is: "The position of a car driver's seat probably does have a significant impact on driving safety." This answers the opening question and represents what the author is ultimately trying to prove.

Step 3: Map the Argument Structure

Main Conclusion: Driver's seat position probably impacts driving safety

↑ Supported by

Premise (Statement in Question): Driving position affects comfort and visibility

↑ Further explained by

Sub-premises:

Uncomfortable drivers become fatigued → harder to concentrate
Better visibility → more awareness of road conditions

Step 4: Apply the "Why Should I Believe That?" Test

Ask: Why should I believe that seat position impacts driving safety? The answer: Because driving position affects comfort and visibility. This confirms the statement functions as a premise supporting the conclusion.

Step 5: Evaluate Answer Choices

✓ Why Option E is Correct

Accurately identifies the role: The statement is indeed a premise
Correctly describes the relationship: It supports the conclusion
Uses appropriate terminology: "Premise offered in support" is the precise description
Passes the structure test: The conclusion logically follows from this premise

Why Other Answers Are Wrong

(A) Incorrect: The statement in question is not the conclusion—it supports the conclusion about safety
(B) Incorrect: The argument doesn't show this claim is inconsistent with evidence; it uses it as support
(C) Incorrect: While there's causal reasoning, the statement isn't explaining an observed phenomenon—it's supporting a conclusion about probable impact
(D) Incorrect: The argument doesn't refute this evidence; it relies on it

Strategy for Solving Role Questions

Success with identify the role questions requires a methodical approach that prioritizes structural analysis. Follow these proven strategies recommended by LSAC and expert LSAT instructors:

Mark the Statement Before Reading

The question stem tells you which statement to focus on. Highlight or underline that specific statement in the passage before you begin reading. This ensures you notice it immediately and can track its role as you read.

Find the Main Conclusion First

Everything in an argument serves the conclusion, so identifying it is crucial. Look for conclusion indicators (therefore, thus, so, hence) or ask "What is the author ultimately trying to prove?" The main point is often (but not always) at the beginning or end.

Map the Entire Argument Structure

Create a mental (or physical) map showing how claims relate. Identify all premises, the main conclusion, any intermediate conclusions, background information, and potential objections or opposing viewpoints.

Determine the Statement's Relationship to the Conclusion

Ask: Does this statement support the conclusion (premise)? Is it the conclusion itself? Does it support something that supports the conclusion (sub-premise for intermediate conclusion)? Does it oppose a view the author is rejecting?

Predict the Role in Your Own Words

Before looking at answer choices, articulate the statement's function: "This is the main conclusion," "This is a premise supporting the conclusion," "This is an objection the author addresses," etc.

Match to Answer Choices Using the Fact Test

The correct answer must accurately describe what the statement actually does in the argument. Every part of the answer choice must be provably true based on the passage. If any element is inaccurate, eliminate that choice.

⚠️ Critical Mistake to Avoid

Don't confuse what the statement says with what it does. Role questions test function, not content. A statement about economics might function as a premise, a conclusion, or background—its topic doesn't determine its role. Focus entirely on structural function.

Common Statement Roles in LSAT Arguments

While arguments can be structured in complex ways, certain roles appear repeatedly on the LSAT. Familiarity with these common functions accelerates your analysis:

Statement Role	Definition	Test Question
Main Conclusion	The primary claim the argument is trying to establish; what the author ultimately wants you to believe	"What is the author's main point?"
Premise	Evidence, reason, or support offered directly for the main conclusion	"Why should I believe the conclusion?"
Intermediate Conclusion	A claim that is both supported by premises AND supports the main conclusion; a stepping stone in the reasoning	"Is evidence given for this claim? Does this claim support something else?"
Sub-premise	Evidence that supports an intermediate conclusion rather than the main conclusion directly	"What does this statement support?"
Background/Context	Information that sets the stage or provides context but doesn't directly support the conclusion	"Does removing this change the argument's logic?"
Opposing View	A position or claim that the author disagrees with or is arguing against	"Does the author agree with this?"
Concession	A point the author acknowledges or grants, often before countering it	"Does the author accept this but qualify it?"
Rebuttal/Counter	Evidence or reasoning that undermines an opposing view or objection	"Is this used to refute something?"

The Logical Flow Relationship

Understanding how these roles connect is crucial. Here's the mathematical relationship:

Sub-premise → Intermediate Conclusion → Main Conclusion
Or more simply: Premise(s) → Conclusion

The "Why Should I Believe That?" Test

The most powerful tool for identifying whether a statement is a premise (supporting something else) or a conclusion (being supported) is the "Why should I believe that?" test.

🔍 How the Test Works

Step 1: Look at the statement in question.

Step 2: Ask: "Why should I believe that statement is true?"

Step 3: If other statements in the argument answer this question, those statements are premises and the statement in question is a conclusion.

Step 4: If the statement in question would answer "Why should I believe the main conclusion?", then it's a premise.

Example Application

Argument: "Exercise improves cardiovascular health. Cardiovascular health is crucial for longevity. Therefore, regular exercise contributes to living longer."

Test the conclusion: "Why should I believe exercise contributes to living longer?"

Answer: Because exercise improves cardiovascular health, and cardiovascular health is crucial for longevity.

Test a premise: "Why should I believe cardiovascular health is crucial for longevity?"

Answer: The argument doesn't explain this—it just asserts it as a premise.

This test reliably distinguishes conclusions (claims that are supported) from premises (claims that provide support).

Understanding Intermediate Conclusions

Intermediate conclusions are among the trickiest roles to identify because they function as both a conclusion (receiving support) and a premise (providing support). Recognizing them is crucial for LSAT success.

Identifying Intermediate Conclusions

An intermediate conclusion has two defining characteristics:

Evidence is provided for it (making it a conclusion of something)
It supports something else (making it a premise for something)

Example of Intermediate Conclusion

Argument: "Sales increased 25% last quarter, and customer satisfaction scores are at an all-time high. This indicates our new product strategy is working. Since our new product strategy is working, we should continue investing in product development."

Structure:

Premises: Sales up 25%, customer satisfaction high

↓

Intermediate Conclusion: New product strategy is working

↓

Main Conclusion: Should continue investing in product development

"New product strategy is working" is an intermediate conclusion because:

Evidence is given for it (sales data and satisfaction scores)
It supports the main conclusion (about continuing investment)

Intermediate Conclusion Formula

Evidence → Intermediate Conclusion → Main Conclusion

The intermediate conclusion is both supported (by evidence) and supportive (of the main conclusion)

Common Wrong Answer Traps

LSAT role questions include predictable wrong answer patterns. Recognizing these helps you eliminate incorrect choices efficiently:

1. Partially Correct Descriptions

These answers correctly identify part of the role but include an inaccurate element. For instance, they might correctly say "It is a premise" but then incorrectly describe what conclusion it supports.

Example: "It is a premise that supports the conclusion that X." If the statement is indeed a premise but actually supports conclusion Y (not X), the answer is wrong. Every part must be accurate.

2. Wrong Point of View

When arguments include multiple viewpoints (author vs. opponent), wrong answers attribute the statement to the wrong person or perspective.

3. Describes Content, Not Function

These answers accurately describe what the statement says but don't describe its role. "It claims that X" might be true, but that doesn't tell us whether it's a premise, conclusion, or background.

4. Wrong Relationship to Conclusion

These answers correctly identify the type of role (premise, objection, etc.) but misidentify which claim it relates to.

5. Role Not Actually Present

These answers describe roles that don't appear in the argument—for example, claiming a statement is an objection being addressed when no objection is presented.

✓ The Fact Test

Every element of the correct answer must be provably accurate. Read each answer choice carefully, and for every claim it makes about the statement's role, verify that claim against the argument. If any part cannot be proven from the text, eliminate that answer.

Handling Complex Multi-Viewpoint Arguments

Some role questions involve arguments with multiple speakers or viewpoints. These require careful tracking of who says what and how different positions relate.

Strategy for Multi-Viewpoint Arguments

Identify All Speakers/Viewpoints

Clearly distinguish between the author's position, opponents' positions, and neutral background information. Label each claim with its source.

Determine the Author's Conclusion

In multi-viewpoint arguments, identifying whose conclusion is the main conclusion is crucial. Usually, the author's position is the main conclusion.

Map How Views Relate

Does the author agree with, reject, or qualify other viewpoints? How does the statement in question fit into these relationships?

📚 Multi-Viewpoint Example

Argument: "Critics claim that social media reduces face-to-face interaction. However, studies show social media users actually have more in-person social connections than non-users. The critics' concern is therefore unfounded."

Viewpoint Mapping:

Critics' View: Social media reduces face-to-face interaction

Author's Evidence: Studies show users have more in-person connections

Author's Conclusion: Critics' concern is unfounded

If asked about the role of "Critics claim that social media reduces face-to-face interaction":

This is an opposing view that the author's argument refutes.

How to Practice Role Questions

Effective practice with official LSAC materials builds your structural analysis skills and pattern recognition. Follow this progressive approach:

Phase 1: Untimed Structural Analysis (Weeks 1-2)

Work through 15-20 role questions from official LSAT PrepTests without time limits
For each argument, manually diagram the complete structure before looking at the question
Practice the "Why should I believe that?" test on every statement
Write out predictions for the statement's role in your own words
Review explanations for every question, including those you answered correctly

Phase 2: Pattern Recognition (Weeks 3-4)

Focus on identifying conclusions and premises quickly (under 30 seconds)
Practice recognizing intermediate conclusions specifically
Begin timing yourself at 90 seconds per question
Build familiarity with common answer choice phrasings
Track which types of roles you struggle to identify

Phase 3: Speed and Integration (Week 5+)

Complete full Logical Reasoning sections under timed conditions
Aim for 60-75 seconds per role question
Target 85-95% accuracy on role questions
Review any errors to identify persistent weak points
Ensure you can quickly identify conclusions in any argument type

📈 Progress Benchmarks

Skill Level	Accuracy	Speed	Key Ability
Beginner	60-70%	120+ sec	Identifies main conclusion reliably
Intermediate	75-85%	75-90 sec	Distinguishes premises from conclusions
Advanced	85-95%	60-75 sec	Identifies intermediate conclusions accurately

Official LSAT Resources for Role Questions

Use only official materials from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and authorized partners for practice. These resources contain authentic LSAT questions:

Primary Official Resources

LSAC Official Logical Reasoning Sample Questions - Free sample questions from LSAC with official explanations
LSAC Official LSAT Prep - Official preparation materials and resources
Official LSAT PrepTests - Published PrepTests containing real LSAT questions
Khan Academy LSAT Prep - Free official LSAT preparation in partnership with LSAC
Khan Academy: Identify the Role - Specific lessons and practice for role identification questions

Recommended PrepTest Range

For the most current question styles:

PrepTests 62-91: Recent exams with current LSAT format
SuperPrep I & II: Official books with detailed explanations
10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests: Collections of authentic exams

⚠️ Stick to Official Materials

While test prep companies offer helpful strategies, always practice with official LSAC questions. Unofficial questions may not accurately replicate LSAT difficulty, structure, or answer patterns. Use commercial resources for strategy guidance, but apply those strategies to official materials only.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many role questions appear on the LSAT?

Typically, 2-4 identify the role questions appear across both Logical Reasoning sections. While not the most common question type, they're highly learnable and can become reliable point-scorers with practice in structural analysis and conclusion identification.

What's the most important skill for role questions?

The single most important skill is identifying the main conclusion quickly and accurately. Once you know what the argument is ultimately trying to prove, you can determine whether other statements support it (premises), are supported by other claims (intermediate conclusions), oppose it (objections), or serve another function. Conclusion identification is foundational.

How do I distinguish between a premise and an intermediate conclusion?

Apply this two-part test: (1) Is evidence provided for the statement in question? If yes, it's some type of conclusion. (2) Does the statement support something else in the argument? If yes, it's functioning as a premise for that claim. If both answers are yes, you have an intermediate conclusion. If only (2) is yes, it's a regular premise.

Should I diagram every argument on role questions?

During practice, yes—diagramming builds structural analysis skills. On test day, create quick mental maps or simple written notes showing conclusion, premises, and their relationships. Full formal diagrams take too long, but some visual organization helps track complex arguments with multiple claims.

What if I can't find the conclusion?

Look for conclusion keywords (therefore, thus, so, hence, consequently). If those aren't present, ask: "What is the author trying to convince me of?" or "What is the argument's main point?" The conclusion is the claim that everything else in the argument serves to support. It often appears at the beginning or end, but not always.

Do role questions test whether arguments are valid or flawed?

No. Role questions test only structural function—what job each statement performs. You're not evaluating logical validity, identifying flaws, or determining whether premises adequately support conclusions. Focus entirely on describing the statement's role within the argument's structure, regardless of whether the reasoning is sound.

Can a statement have multiple roles?

A statement typically has one primary role, though intermediate conclusions perform a dual function (both conclusion and premise). The correct answer will describe the statement's main function or its complete role. If an answer only captures part of what a statement does, it may be incomplete.

How do I handle arguments with background information?

Background or context statements set the stage but don't directly support the conclusion. Test them with: "Does removing this statement weaken the argument's logic?" If no, it's likely background. Background provides context or definitions but isn't evidence for the conclusion. The argument's logical structure remains intact without it.

What's the best way to check my answer?

Read your selected answer choice and verify that every single element accurately describes what the statement does in the argument. Use the Fact Test: Can I point to specific parts of the argument that prove each claim in this answer? If any part of the answer choice isn't demonstrably accurate, reconsider your selection.

Test Day Strategy for Role Questions

✓ Quick Reference Checklist

Recognize the question type by its characteristic stem
Mark the statement in question before reading
Identify the main conclusion first and foremost
Map key structural relationships (what supports what)
Apply the "Why should I believe that?" test
Predict the role in your own words
Use the Fact Test on each answer choice
Select the answer where every element is accurate

Confidence Builders

Role questions are highly systematic: Follow the same process every time
Structural analysis is learnable: Practice builds automatic recognition
Common patterns repeat: Most arguments use familiar structures
Conclusion identification improves quickly: This skill develops rapidly with practice
High accuracy is achievable: Most prepared test-takers reach 85-95% on role questions

⏱️ Time Management

Role questions should take 60-75 seconds once you've developed structural analysis skills. If you're spending more than 90 seconds, you may be over-analyzing. Trust your structural map and prediction, apply the Fact Test efficiently, and move forward. You can always flag and return if time permits.

Key Takeaways

Mastering identify the role questions in LSAT Logical Reasoning requires developing strong structural analysis skills—the ability to quickly identify an argument's main conclusion and determine how each statement relates to that conclusion. The fundamental distinction between premises (statements that support) and conclusions (statements that are supported) is the foundation upon which all role identification rests.

The most powerful tools for success are the "Why should I believe that?" test for identifying conclusions and premises, careful attention to intermediate conclusions that serve dual functions, and the Fact Test for evaluating answer choices. Every element of the correct answer must be provably accurate based on the argument's structure.

The Success Formula

Conclusion Identification + Structural Mapping + "Why Believe?" Test = Accurate Role Determination

With consistent practice using official LSAC materials, systematic application of structural analysis techniques, and focus on the relationships between claims rather than their content, identify the role questions become reliable opportunities to demonstrate your analytical skills and earn valuable points toward your target LSAT score.

🎯 Your Action Plan

Access official LSAT PrepTests from LSAC.org
Isolate 30-40 role questions for dedicated practice
Practice conclusion identification across all argument types
Diagram argument structures until pattern recognition becomes automatic
Master the "Why should I believe that?" test
Track your accuracy on different role types (premise, intermediate conclusion, etc.)
Integrate role questions into full-section timed practice
Review every question to strengthen structural analysis skills

With systematic practice, disciplined structural analysis, and mastery of conclusion identification, you'll approach identify the role questions with confidence and precision on test day, consistently identifying statement functions and selecting accurate answer choices that fully describe each claim's role in the argument.