Explain Questions in LSAT Logical Reasoning: Resolve the Paradox Mastery Guide
Explain questions—also known as "Resolve the Paradox," "Resolve the Discrepancy," or "Explain the Phenomenon" questions—represent approximately 7-9% of all LSAT Logical Reasoning questions (roughly 3-4 questions per test). These distinctive questions present you with two seemingly contradictory or surprising facts and challenge you to identify the information that explains how both can be true simultaneously. Unlike strengthen or weaken questions that ask you to affect an argument, explain questions ask you to solve a puzzle by finding the missing piece that makes an apparent contradiction disappear. Mastering these questions demonstrates your ability to think analytically about complex situations, reconcile conflicting information, and identify the hidden factors that explain unexpected outcomes—critical skills for legal reasoning, case analysis, and understanding complex factual scenarios in legal practice.
What Are Explain Questions (Resolve the Paradox)?
An explain question presents you with two or more facts that appear contradictory, surprising, or puzzling, and asks you to identify which answer choice, if true, would best explain how all the facts can coexist without contradiction. These questions don't present traditional arguments with premises and conclusions—instead, they present factual scenarios that seem puzzling or paradoxical.
The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) designs these questions to test your ability to identify explanatory factors, reconcile seemingly conflicting evidence, and understand how contextual information can resolve apparent contradictions—essential skills for understanding complex legal situations where multiple facts must be reconciled.
Recognizing Explain Questions
Identifying explain questions is straightforward—they use distinctive phrasing that explicitly asks about resolving, explaining, or reconciling seemingly contradictory information. Look for these key phrases:
- "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the paradox described above?"
- "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?"
- "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the seemingly contradictory findings?"
- "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain why both statements could be true?"
- "Which one of the following best explains the surprising result described above?"
- "Which one of the following most helps to account for the unexpected outcome?"
The key indicators are "explain," "resolve," "reconcile," "account for," combined with words like "paradox," "discrepancy," "apparent contradiction," "surprising," or "unexpected." The phrase "if true" signals you should accept the answer as fact and evaluate its explanatory power.
Explain Questions vs. Other Question Types
Understanding how explain questions differ from similar question types ensures you apply the correct analytical approach and avoid confusion.
| Aspect | Explain Question | Strengthen Question | Weaken Question | Assumption Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What's Presented | Two or more FACTS that seem contradictory | An ARGUMENT (premises + conclusion) | An ARGUMENT (premises + conclusion) | An ARGUMENT (premises + conclusion) |
| Your Task | EXPLAIN how all facts can be true together | Make conclusion MORE LIKELY | Make conclusion LESS LIKELY | Identify UNSTATED premise needed |
| Key Phrase | "explain," "resolve," "reconcile," "account for" | "strengthens," "supports" | "weakens," "undermines" | "assumes," "depends on" |
| Answer Effect | Makes puzzle DISAPPEAR—shows how facts coexist | Adds SUPPORT to argument | Adds DOUBT to argument | Fills LOGICAL GAP in reasoning |
| Correct Answer Provides | A DISTINCTION, HIDDEN FACTOR, or CONTEXT that eliminates contradiction | Evidence that increases conclusion's likelihood | Evidence that decreases conclusion's likelihood | The necessary link between premises and conclusion |
| Wrong Answers Often | Explain only ONE side, or introduce new contradictions | Are out of scope or weaken instead | Are out of scope or strengthen instead | Are sufficient but not necessary |
The Structure of Explain Questions: Identifying the Paradox
Every explain question contains a paradox or discrepancy—two or more facts that, on their face, seem incompatible or surprising. Your first task is to identify these conflicting elements clearly.
Paradox Structure Formula:
Fact A (Expected/Typical Pattern) + Fact B (Contradicts or Surprises) → Apparent Paradox
Resolution:
Missing Factor X → Explains How A and B Coexist
Three Common Paradox Patterns
Pattern 1: Direct Contradiction
Structure: Fact A says one thing, Fact B says the opposite thing, both about the same subject.
Example:
"Studies show exercise reduces stress."
"People who exercise regularly report higher stress levels."
The Paradox: How can exercise both reduce stress (Fact A) AND correlate with higher stress (Fact B)?
Type of Resolution Needed: A distinction or hidden factor that explains why both can be true. Perhaps people who are already highly stressed are more likely to start exercising (self-selection), or perhaps the studies and survey measured different types of stress or different time frames.
Pattern 2: Unexpected Outcome
Structure: Given X (cause or action), you'd expect Y (result), but Z (opposite result) happens instead.
Example:
"When a bakery reduced cake prices by 30%, we'd expect sales to increase."
"Instead, overall profits decreased significantly."
The Paradox: How can price reduction lead to LOWER profits instead of the expected increase?
Type of Resolution Needed: An explanation for the unexpected outcome. Perhaps the bakery couldn't keep up with demand and ran out of ingredients, or perhaps the price reduction signaled lower quality and overall customer traffic decreased, or perhaps profit margins became too thin to cover fixed costs.
Pattern 3: Inverse Correlation
Structure: As X increases, Y decreases (or vice versa) in a counterintuitive way.
Example:
"Countries with higher coffee consumption have lower rates of heart disease."
"Medical research shows caffeine increases heart rate and blood pressure, risk factors for heart disease."
The Paradox: How can coffee consumption correlate with LOWER heart disease when caffeine has properties that should increase risk?
Type of Resolution Needed: A confounding variable, alternative explanation, or distinction. Perhaps wealthier countries consume more coffee AND have better healthcare, or perhaps coffee drinkers have other healthy habits, or perhaps coffee contains other compounds that offset caffeine's effects.
The Five-Step Strategy for Explain Questions
1Confirm the Question Type
Read the question stem and confirm you're dealing with an explain question by looking for "explain," "resolve," "reconcile," or "account for" combined with "paradox," "discrepancy," "contradiction," or "surprising result." This activates your mystery-solving mindset—you're looking for the missing piece that makes the puzzle fit together.
2Identify the Two Sides of the Paradox
Carefully read the stimulus and clearly identify the two (or more) facts that seem contradictory or surprising. It helps to physically or mentally separate them:
- Side A: What's the first fact, expectation, or typical pattern?
- Side B: What's the contradictory fact, unexpected result, or surprising outcome?
Write them down or clearly mark them in your mind. Understanding both sides precisely is essential for predicting what would resolve the discrepancy.
Pro Tip: Look for signal words that mark the contradiction: "but," "yet," "however," "surprisingly," "despite," "although," "even though," "nevertheless." These words often introduce the surprising element.
3Articulate the Paradox as a Question
Frame the paradox as a clear question that captures the puzzle you need to solve. This focuses your thinking and often leads directly to the type of answer you need.
Template phrases:
- "How can BOTH [Fact A] AND [Fact B] be true?"
- "Why did [Action X] lead to [Unexpected Result Y] instead of [Expected Result Z]?"
- "What explains why [Surprising Correlation] exists despite [Contrary Expectation]?"
Example:
Facts: "Despite installing security cameras, shoplifting increased at the store."
Paradox Question: "Why did shoplifting INCREASE after cameras were installed, when cameras should DETER theft?"
This question guides your prediction: you need an answer that explains why cameras failed to deter or actually encouraged theft.
4Predict the Type of Resolution
Before looking at answer choices, predict what KIND of information would resolve the paradox. You don't need to guess the exact wording, but identifying the category of explanation helps you recognize the correct answer.
Common resolution types:
- A Distinction: The two facts apply to DIFFERENT groups, time periods, measurements, or contexts
- A Hidden Factor: An additional variable you weren't initially considering explains the situation
- Alternative Causation: Something OTHER than the assumed cause explains the outcome
- Self-Selection: People with preexisting differences chose different paths, creating the observed pattern
- Measurement Issues: The facts measure different things despite similar language
- Compensating Factors: One effect was offset or counterbalanced by another
Your prediction narrows your search and helps you eliminate irrelevant answers quickly.
5Test Answer Choices: Does It Explain BOTH Sides?
Evaluate each answer by asking: "If this is true, does it explain how BOTH facts can coexist? Does it make the paradox disappear?" The correct answer must address BOTH sides of the discrepancy—if it only explains one fact while ignoring the other, it's wrong.
Testing Checklist:
- Does it address BOTH facts? (Not just one side)
- Does it make the paradox DISAPPEAR? (You should say "Ah, now it makes sense!")
- Does it introduce NEW information? (Not just restate what's already said)
- Is it RELEVANT to the specific facts presented? (Not just generally related to the topic)
If an answer passes all four tests, it's likely correct. If multiple answers seem to pass, choose the one that most DIRECTLY and COMPLETELY resolves the specific paradox presented.
Types of Explanatory Resolutions
Understanding the common ways paradoxes are resolved helps you recognize correct answers more quickly.
Resolution Type 1: The Distinction/Different Groups
How it works: The two seemingly contradictory facts apply to DIFFERENT groups, populations, time periods, or contexts. Once you realize they're talking about different things, the contradiction disappears.
Example Paradox:
"Medical research shows that moderate alcohol consumption reduces heart disease risk. Yet emergency rooms report that alcohol is involved in a majority of heart attack cases."
Resolution: "The research on moderate consumption studied people drinking 1-2 drinks daily over years, while emergency room cases typically involve binge drinking or chronic alcoholism—entirely different consumption patterns."
Why it works: The distinction clarifies that "alcohol consumption" in the two contexts means DIFFERENT THINGS. Moderate consumption is not the same as binge drinking. Both facts remain true, but they apply to different groups with different drinking patterns.
Resolution Type 2: The Hidden Factor/Confounding Variable
How it works: A third factor that wasn't mentioned initially explains the surprising relationship or outcome. This hidden factor affects both observed facts, making them compatible.
Example Paradox:
"Students who study with music playing perform better on tests than those who study in silence. However, concentration research shows that multitasking reduces cognitive performance."
Resolution: "Students who choose to study with music tend to be those who are easily bored and distracted in silence, while those who prefer silence are naturally better at maintaining focus. The music doesn't improve performance—it just indicates students who need more stimulation to stay engaged."
Why it works: The hidden factor (personality differences in need for stimulation) explains both why some students prefer music AND why they perform better—it's not the music causing the improvement, but a third variable (personality) affecting both music preference and study effectiveness.
Resolution Type 3: The Alternative Explanation
How it works: What seemed like a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship is actually explained by an alternative cause that wasn't initially considered.
Example Paradox:
"After the company implemented flexible work hours, productivity increased by 20%. Strangely, employee office attendance decreased by 30% during the same period."
Resolution: "The flexible hours allowed employees to work during their peak energy times, whether morning or evening, and many chose to complete their most productive work from home when they could focus without office interruptions."
Why it works: This explains BOTH facts: productivity increased (because people worked when most alert and focused) AND attendance decreased (because people worked effectively from home). The alternative explanation shows these aren't contradictory—they're related outcomes of the same policy allowing optimized work conditions.
Resolution Type 4: The Self-Selection Explanation
How it works: People with preexisting characteristics chose different paths, creating the observed correlation. The factor being studied didn't CAUSE the difference—the difference existed first and influenced the choice.
Example Paradox:
"People who eat organic food have lower obesity rates. Yet organic food often has the same calorie content as conventional food."
Resolution: "People who prioritize organic food are generally more health-conscious and engage in multiple healthy behaviors including portion control, regular exercise, and limiting processed foods. The organic food choice is a marker of overall health consciousness, not the cause of lower obesity."
Why it works: This explains how both facts coexist: organic food doesn't have special weight-loss properties (same calories), BUT people who buy organic are already more health-focused in many ways, explaining their lower obesity rates. The correlation exists due to self-selection, not causation.
Resolution Type 5: The Compensating Factor
How it works: One positive effect was offset or counterbalanced by a negative effect (or vice versa), explaining an unexpected net result.
Example Paradox:
"The restaurant reduced prices by 25% to attract more customers. More customers did come, but total revenue decreased."
Resolution: "While the lower prices attracted 20% more customers, each customer spent 25% less, and the increased volume overwhelmed the kitchen, forcing the restaurant to turn away customers during peak hours, resulting in a net revenue decrease."
Why it works: This explains the unexpected outcome: more customers (addressing Fact A) but lower revenue (addressing Fact B) by showing that the price reduction had MULTIPLE effects—some positive (volume) and some negative (per-customer spending, operational capacity)—that combined to produce the counterintuitive result.
Common Trap Answer Types in Explain Questions
Trap 1: The One-Sided Explanation
What it is: An answer that explains or supports ONE side of the paradox while completely ignoring or failing to address the other side.
Why it's tempting: It sounds relevant and true—it just doesn't do the complete job of resolving the discrepancy.
How to avoid it: After reading an answer, explicitly check: "Does this explain Side A? Does this explain Side B? Does it show how they coexist?" All three must be YES.
Example:
Paradox: "Despite increased funding for public schools, test scores decreased."
Trap answer: "Increased funding allowed schools to hire more teachers."
Why it's wrong: This addresses the funding (Side A) but doesn't explain why scores DECREASED (Side B). If anything, more teachers should IMPROVE scores, so this answer doesn't resolve—it deepens—the paradox. You need an answer that explains why increased funding didn't help or even hurt scores.
Trap 2: The Irrelevant Detail
What it is: An answer that discusses the general topic or provides interesting but irrelevant information that doesn't actually resolve the specific discrepancy.
Why it's tempting: It's topically related and might sound sophisticated or knowledgeable, creating a false sense of relevance.
How to avoid it: Stay focused on the SPECIFIC paradox. Don't be distracted by answers that are "about" the topic but don't explain the particular discrepancy presented.
Example:
Paradox: "Cities with more bike lanes have higher cyclist injury rates."
Trap answer: "Cycling has become increasingly popular as a form of exercise and commuting."
Why it's wrong: While true and topically related, this doesn't explain why MORE bike lanes (which should be safer) correlate with MORE injuries. General cycling popularity doesn't resolve the specific paradox about bike lane safety.
Trap 3: The Paradox Deepener
What it is: An answer that actually makes the paradox WORSE by providing information that intensifies the contradiction rather than resolving it.
Why it's dangerous: It's easy to miss this on a quick read, especially if you're not actively testing whether the answer resolves or worsens the discrepancy.
How to avoid it: After reading each answer, ask: "Does this make the facts more compatible or more contradictory?" Eliminate any answer that deepens the mystery.
Example:
Paradox: "Stores that stay open 24 hours have lower overall profits than stores with limited hours."
Trap answer: "Operating costs for 24-hour stores are only marginally higher than for limited-hours stores."
Why it's wrong: This WORSENS the paradox! If costs are only marginally higher, it's even MORE mysterious why 24-hour stores have lower profits. You'd expect extended hours with minimal extra cost to boost profits. This answer makes the situation more puzzling, not less.
Trap 4: The Restatement
What it is: An answer that simply restates one or both of the facts already given, without adding new explanatory information.
Why it's wrong: Explain questions require NEW information that wasn't already in the stimulus. Restatements add nothing.
How to avoid it: Ask: "Is this telling me something new, or just repeating what I already know in different words?"
Example:
Paradox: "Despite a ban on cell phone use while driving, accidents involving cell phones increased."
Trap answer: "Many drivers were using cell phones while driving after the ban was implemented."
Why it's wrong: This just restates that accidents involving phones increased (which we already know). It doesn't EXPLAIN why the ban didn't reduce them or why they increased. This adds no new explanatory information.
Trap 5: The Wrong Mechanism
What it is: An answer that provides a mechanism or explanation, but for the WRONG relationship or the wrong direction of causation.
Why it's tricky: It sounds explanatory and uses causal language, but it explains something that wasn't the actual paradox.
How to avoid it: Carefully verify that the explanation addresses the SPECIFIC discrepancy, not just a general causal relationship in the stimulus.
Example:
Paradox: "Online reviews for the restaurant are overwhelmingly positive, yet the restaurant struggles to attract customers."
Trap answer: "Customers who have positive dining experiences are more likely to leave reviews than those who have negative experiences."
Why it's wrong: This explains why reviews might be positively BIASED, but it doesn't explain why POSITIVE reviews fail to attract customers. You need something that explains why good reviews don't translate to customer traffic (perhaps the restaurant is in a bad location, or reviews are on an obscure platform, etc.).
Worked Example with Complete Analysis
Sample Question
Stimulus: "A study found that scientists who published more research papers, including many papers with flawed methodology or mediocre results, tended to be more prominent and successful in their fields than scientists who published fewer, but higher-quality, papers."
Question: "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?"
Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1 - Confirm Question Type: This is an explain question—"resolve the apparent discrepancy." I need to find information that explains how both facts can be true.
Step 2 - Identify the Two Sides:
Quality should matter—higher-quality work should lead to prominence and success.
Scientists with MORE papers (including flawed ones) are MORE successful than those with fewer, higher-quality papers.
Step 3 - Articulate the Paradox: "Why are scientists who publish lots of mediocre work MORE successful than those who publish less but higher-quality work? Shouldn't quality beat quantity?"
Step 4 - Predict Resolution Type: I need something that explains how quantity (even with some poor quality) leads to success. Maybe:
- Total volume includes BOTH good and bad work—more total means more good work too
- Publishing more creates more visibility/opportunities regardless of quality
- Something about how success is measured favors volume
Evaluating Answer Choices
(A) "Scientists who publish prolifically have more opportunities to collaborate with other researchers."
Analysis: This suggests prolific publishing leads to collaboration. But does this explain why MEDIOCRE work correlates with success? This is one-sided—it explains what prolific publishers gain but doesn't explain why including flawed work doesn't hurt them or why quality matters less than quantity. Weak. ✗
(B) "Most scientists produce at least some mediocre and flawed work in addition to any high-quality work they produce."
Analysis: This just says everyone produces some mediocre work. But this doesn't explain the PARADOX—why those who publish MORE total papers (including mediocre ones) are MORE successful. This is a restatement/generalization, not an explanation. Eliminate. ✗
(C) "The amount of mediocre work a scientist produces and the amount of high-quality work that scientist produces both tend to increase with the total amount of work produced."
Analysis: AH! This is it. This explains BOTH sides of the paradox:
- Side A (Quality matters): More total output means more HIGH-QUALITY work too (quality does contribute to success)
- Side B (Quantity with flaws): More total output ALSO means more mediocre work (the flawed papers aren't the cause of success—they just come along with higher total output)
If prolific scientists produce MORE of BOTH high-quality AND mediocre work, then the success correlates with high-quality output (which validates that quality matters), but you also see lots of mediocre work (because high producers produce lots of everything). The paradox disappears. Strong contender. ✓✓
(D) "The prominence and success of a scientist are determined largely by the scientist's best work, not by the overall quality of all the scientist's work."
Analysis: This suggests success depends on "best work," not average quality. This could work—if prolific publishers have more chances to produce something excellent (even if mixed with mediocre work), they'd be more successful. This addresses both sides: quality matters (best work drives success) but quantity helps (more shots at producing something great). This is also strong. Keep for comparison. ✓
(E) "Scientific journals are more likely to accept papers from prominent scientists than from less well-known scientists."
Analysis: This is reverse causation—prominent scientists get published more easily. But this doesn't EXPLAIN the original correlation (why prolific publishers with mediocre work are more prominent). If anything, this assumes they're already prominent and explains a consequence of prominence, not the cause. Wrong direction. Eliminate. ✗
Comparing Final Contenders: (C) and (D)
Answer (C): Explains that more total work means more of EVERYTHING—both high-quality and mediocre. This directly addresses why you see a correlation between mediocre work and success (it's not the mediocre work causing success; it's that successful scientists are prolific and produce lots of both types). This is very direct and complete.
Answer (D): Says "best work" determines success, not overall quality. This explains why mediocre work doesn't hurt (because it's ignored in favor of best work), but doesn't as clearly explain why prolific publishers are MORE successful. It's slightly more indirect.
Correct Answer: (C)
Why it's correct: Answer (C) provides the most complete and direct resolution. It explains the paradox by showing that prolific output includes BOTH high-quality work (which drives success, validating that quality matters) AND mediocre work (which comes along for the ride as a byproduct of high productivity). The mediocre work isn't causing success—it's just correlated because scientists who produce a lot produce a lot of EVERYTHING, including the high-quality work that actually makes them prominent. This makes both facts perfectly compatible: quality matters AND prolific scientists (who have more mediocre work) are more successful, because they ALSO have more high-quality work. The paradox disappears completely.
Advanced Techniques for Explain Questions
Technique 1: The "Both True" Test
For every answer choice, explicitly ask: "If this is true, are BOTH original facts still true? And do they now make sense together?" This forces you to verify that the answer doesn't eliminate one fact (which would be wrong) but instead shows how they coexist.
Application: State each fact aloud or in your mind, add the answer choice information, and verify that all facts remain true and now fit together logically. If you find yourself thinking "Well, maybe one of the original facts isn't quite right after all," that answer is wrong—explain questions don't invalidate the stimulus facts.
Technique 2: The Missing Variable Brainstorm
Before looking at answers, spend 15-20 seconds brainstorming potential "missing variables" that weren't mentioned in the stimulus. Ask yourself:
- What relevant factors might not have been considered?
- What differences between groups could explain the discrepancy?
- What alternative causes could be at play?
- What measurement or definitional issues might exist?
This primes you to recognize the correct answer when it introduces one of these missing pieces.
Technique 3: The Eliminate-by-Impact Strategy
Quickly eliminate answers based on their impact on the paradox:
- First pass: Eliminate answers that are clearly out of scope or irrelevant to the specific facts
- Second pass: Eliminate answers that deepen the paradox or address only one side
- Third pass: Among remaining answers, choose the one that most DIRECTLY and COMPLETELY resolves both sides of the discrepancy
This systematic elimination often leaves you with one or two strong contenders to compare carefully.
Technique 4: The Strength Comparison for Final Two
When you're down to two answers that both seem to resolve the paradox, ask:
- Which is more DIRECT? (Fewer logical steps to resolve)
- Which is more COMPLETE? (Addresses both sides fully vs. partially)
- Which makes the paradox more OBVIOUSLY resolved? (Clear "Aha!" moment)
- Which requires fewer ADDITIONAL assumptions to work?
The correct answer typically scores higher on all or most of these criteria.
Practice Strategy for Explain Questions
Explain questions have distinctive features that require specialized practice:
- Practice Paradox Identification First: Before timing yourself, practice just identifying and articulating the paradox in 10-15 explain questions. Write out "Side A: [fact]" and "Side B: [contradictory fact]" clearly. This skill is foundational.
- Create a Prediction Log: For each question, write your prediction of what KIND of resolution would work before looking at answers. Track whether the correct answer matches your prediction type (even if not your exact wording). This improves your prediction accuracy.
- Collect by Paradox Type: Organize practice questions by paradox type (direct contradiction, unexpected outcome, inverse correlation). This helps you recognize patterns and develop type-specific approaches.
- Practice "Both True" Verification: For every correct answer you identify, explicitly verify: "Fact A is still true [check]. Fact B is still true [check]. They now make sense together [check]." Make this a habit so it becomes automatic under time pressure.
- Analyze Wrong Answer Patterns: Track which trap type catches you most often. Do you fall for one-sided explanations? Irrelevant details? Paradox deepeners? Target your specific vulnerability through focused practice.
- Compare with Strengthen Questions: Occasionally practice explain and strengthen questions together to sharpen your ability to distinguish them. Note how strengthen questions have arguments while explain questions have factual paradoxes.
- Time Management: Explain questions typically take 1 minute 20 seconds to 1 minute 45 seconds. They're usually moderate difficulty. Don't overthink—if an answer makes both facts clearly compatible, it's likely correct. Trust clear resolutions.
- Use Official Materials Only: Practice exclusively with official LSAT PrepTests from LSAC. Explain questions require particularly nuanced writing, and third-party materials often miss the subtlety of real LSAT paradoxes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Official LSAT Resources
Maximize your LSAT preparation with these official resources from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC):
LSAC Official Logical Reasoning Overview LSAC Official Sample Questions LSAC LawHub Prep Platform Official LSAT PrepTests LSAT Test Dates and RegistrationMastering Explain Questions: Your Path to LSAT Excellence
Explain questions test one of the most valuable intellectual skills: the ability to reconcile seemingly contradictory information by identifying the hidden factors, distinctions, or context that makes everything fit together. This skill is fundamental to legal practice, where attorneys must constantly synthesize conflicting evidence, expert testimony, and witness accounts to construct coherent narratives and identify the truth. By mastering the systematic approach outlined in this guide—clearly identifying both sides of paradoxes, articulating them as questions, predicting resolution types, and rigorously testing whether answers address both sides—you'll develop the analytical precision that characterizes exceptional legal reasoning. Practice consistently with official LSAT PrepTests, always use the "Both True" test to verify your answers, focus on understanding paradox patterns deeply, and train yourself to recognize the common trap answers that explain only one side. With dedicated practice and the resolution strategies you've learned here, you'll gain the confidence and skill needed to excel on explain questions and achieve your target LSAT score. Remember: every paradox has a resolution—your job is to find the missing piece that makes the puzzle complete. Master this skill, and you'll stand out as a logical thinker who can make sense of complexity!