Working with Disputes: Logical Reasoning Worked Examples for LSAT Prep
Dispute questions are among the most common question types in LSAT Logical Reasoning sections. These questions present two speakers who disagree about a particular topic, and you must identify exactly what they disagree about or what they agree on. Mastering dispute questions requires careful reading, precise identification of each speaker's position, and the ability to distinguish between actual points of disagreement and mere differences in emphasis.
On the LSAT, dispute questions typically account for 10-15% of Logical Reasoning questions. The Law School Admission Council emphasizes that these questions test your ability to identify the specific logical relationship between two arguments or positions. Success with dispute questions directly translates to improved performance on the Logical Reasoning sections, which comprise approximately 50% of your total LSAT score.
Understanding Dispute Questions
What Are Dispute Questions?
Dispute questions present dialogue between two speakers and ask you to identify the precise point on which they disagree or agree. These questions appear in two main forms:
- Point of Contention: Identify what the speakers disagree about (most common)
- Point of Agreement: Identify what the speakers agree about (less common)
Common Question Stems
For Point of Contention (Disagreement):
- "Laird and Kim disagree on whether..."
- "The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that the two individuals disagree about..."
- "On the basis of their statements above, it can be inferred that the two speakers disagree over..."
- "Which one of the following is the point at issue between them?"
For Point of Agreement:
- "The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that the two individuals agree that..."
- "Which one of the following is a point on which they agree?"
Core Strategy for Dispute Questions
Five-Step Approach
Step 1Read and Summarize Each Speaker's Position
Carefully read what the first speaker says and mentally paraphrase their main claim. Then do the same for the second speaker. Focus on their conclusions and the reasoning they provide.
Step 2Identify the Topic of Discussion
Determine what general subject both speakers are addressing. This helps you understand the context of their disagreement or agreement.
Step 3Locate the Precise Point of Contention or Agreement
Find the specific claim or aspect where their positions differ (for disagreement) or align (for agreement). This is often more narrow than the general topic.
Step 4Apply the Commitment Test
For each answer choice, verify that both speakers are committed to opposite positions (for disagreement) or the same position (for agreement). If one speaker hasn't taken a clear stance, eliminate that choice.
Step 5Select the Most Precise Answer
Choose the answer that most accurately captures the specific point where the speakers' positions diverge or converge. Avoid answers that are too broad or too narrow.
Worked Example 1: Point of Contention
Official LSAC Sample Question
Laird: Pure research provides us with new technologies that contribute to saving lives. Even more worthwhile than this, however, is its role in expanding our knowledge and providing new, unexplored ideas.
Kim: Your priorities are mistaken. Saving lives is what counts most of all. Without pure research, medicine would not be as advanced as it is.
Laird and Kim disagree on whether pure research
Answer Choices:
Detailed Solution
AnalysisUnderstanding Laird's Position
Laird acknowledges that pure research provides technologies that save lives. However, Laird states that "even more worthwhile than this" is pure research's role in expanding knowledge and providing new ideas. This means Laird values knowledge expansion more than life-saving applications.
AnalysisUnderstanding Kim's Position
Kim directly challenges Laird's priorities by stating "Your priorities are mistaken. Saving lives is what counts most of all." Kim believes the life-saving applications are the most important aspect of pure research, not knowledge expansion.
EvaluationIdentifying the Disagreement
The speakers disagree about what aspect of pure research is most valuable:
- Laird's view: Knowledge expansion is more valuable than life-saving applications
- Kim's view: Life-saving applications are most valuable
AnswerWhy (D) Is Correct
Choice (D) states: "has its most valuable achievements in medical applications." This perfectly captures the disagreement. Kim would agree with this statement (medical/life-saving applications are most valuable), while Laird would disagree (knowledge expansion is more valuable than medical applications).
EliminationWhy Other Answers Are Wrong
(A) Both speakers would agree that pure research derives significance from providing new technologies. No disagreement here.
(B) Neither speaker directly addresses whether pure research expands medical knowledge specifically. This is not their point of contention.
(C) Neither speaker suggests that saving lives shouldn't be an important goal. They disagree about whether it's the most important aspect.
(E) Both speakers acknowledge that pure research has value beyond life-saving technologies. Laird explicitly mentions knowledge expansion, and Kim doesn't deny this value exists.
Worked Example 2: Physician Trampoline Safety
Point of Disagreement Practice
Physician: There were approximately 83,400 trampoline-related injuries last year. This suggests that trampolines are quite dangerous and should therefore be used with extreme caution, especially by children.
Health Educator: Your conclusion is unwarranted. Without knowing the total number of trampoline users or the number of hours trampolines were used, we cannot determine whether trampolines pose a significant danger. The absolute number of injuries alone tells us nothing about the rate of injury.
The physician and health educator disagree over
Answer Choices:
Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1Identify the Physician's Argument
The physician presents data (83,400 injuries) and draws a conclusion from it: trampolines are quite dangerous. The reasoning follows this pattern:
Premise: Large number of trampoline injuries
Conclusion: Trampolines are dangerous
Recommendation: Use with extreme caution
Step 2Identify the Health Educator's Response
The health educator directly challenges the physician's reasoning by stating "Your conclusion is unwarranted." The educator argues that the absolute number of injuries is insufficient data because we need to know:
- The total number of trampoline users (denominator for rate calculation)
- The total hours of trampoline use (exposure time)
Without this context, we cannot calculate an injury rate, which is what actually indicates danger level.
Step 3Apply the Commitment Test
The core disagreement is about the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conclusion:
- Physician believes: The number 83,400 is sufficient evidence to conclude danger
- Health Educator believes: This number alone is insufficient; we need rate data
Step 4Evaluate Answer Choice (C)
"Whether the injury data provided is sufficient to conclude trampolines are dangerous"
This perfectly captures their disagreement. The physician uses the data to conclude danger exists; the health educator argues this same data is insufficient for that conclusion.
Step 5Eliminate Wrong Answers
(A) Neither speaker disputes that 83,400 injuries occurred. The health educator accepts this fact.
(B) While the physician mentions children should use caution, the health educator doesn't take a position on whether children should use trampolines at all.
(D) Neither speaker compares trampolines to other recreational equipment. This is outside their discussion.
(E) The health educator doesn't claim that no precautions are needed. They simply say the conclusion about danger is unwarranted based on the evidence provided. They could still believe some precautions are prudent.
Notice how the health educator challenges the reasoning, not the fact. This is common in dispute questions. One speaker accepts the premises but rejects the conclusion or the logical connection between them. Always distinguish between disagreements about facts versus disagreements about what those facts prove.
Worked Example 3: Consumer Research Study
Advanced Dispute Question
Marketing Director: Our consumer research study shows that 78% of respondents prefer our product over competitors. This proves our advertising campaign has been highly effective and should be expanded to additional markets.
Research Analyst: I disagree with your interpretation. While the preference data is encouraging, the study surveyed only existing customers in regions where we've advertised for years. We cannot conclude anything about how effective the advertising would be in new markets with different demographics and no brand familiarity.
The marketing director and research analyst disagree about whether
Answer Choices:
Comprehensive Solution
BreakdownStructure of the Marketing Director's Argument
The marketing director presents a three-part argument:
- Evidence: 78% consumer preference in the study
- Intermediate Conclusion: The advertising campaign has been effective
- Final Conclusion: The campaign should be expanded to new markets
The logical structure assumes that past effectiveness predicts future effectiveness in different contexts.
BreakdownStructure of the Research Analyst's Response
The analyst makes several critical points:
- Partial Agreement: "the preference data is encouraging" (accepts the 78% finding)
- Challenge to Interpretation: "I disagree with your interpretation"
- Methodological Concern: Study only surveyed existing customers in established markets
- Conclusion: Cannot extrapolate to new markets with different conditions
AnalysisIdentifying What They DON'T Disagree About
This is crucial for elimination:
- Both accept the 78% preference statistic as accurate
- Neither questions whether the study was conducted properly
- Neither disputes that advertising can affect consumer preferences
- Both implicitly accept that surveying customers has some value
AnalysisPinpointing the Precise Disagreement
The disagreement centers on generalizability:
Marketing Director: Study results → Advertising is effective → Therefore expand to new markets
Research Analyst: Study results → Advertising may be effective in current markets → But this doesn't tell us about new markets
The analyst challenges whether the evidence supports the conclusion about expanding to new markets.
VerificationWhy (C) Is Correct
"Whether the study's results support expanding advertising to new markets"
Applying the commitment test:
- Marketing Director's position: Yes, the study results DO support expansion (explicitly stated)
- Research Analyst's position: No, the study results do NOT support this conclusion about new markets (explicitly stated: "We cannot conclude anything about...new markets")
Both speakers are clearly committed to opposite positions on this precise issue.
EliminationDetailed Analysis of Wrong Answers
(A) Whether the consumer research study was properly conducted
The analyst doesn't criticize the study's methodology or execution. The concern is about generalizability, not whether the study itself was done correctly. The analyst calls the data "encouraging," suggesting the study itself is valid.
(B) Whether 78% of respondents prefer their product over competitors
Both speakers accept this statistic. The analyst explicitly acknowledges "the preference data" without questioning its accuracy.
(D) Whether existing customers should be surveyed about product preferences
Neither speaker takes a position on whether this type of survey should or shouldn't be done. The analyst's concern is about extrapolating results, not about the practice of surveying existing customers.
(E) Whether advertising has any effect on consumer preferences
The analyst doesn't deny that advertising affects preferences. In fact, by discussing "brand familiarity" in established markets, the analyst implicitly acknowledges advertising's role. The disagreement is much more specific: whether this particular study proves effectiveness in new contexts.
Watch for disagreements about generalizability and scope. LSAT frequently tests whether conclusions drawn from one context apply to another. One speaker makes a broad claim while the other argues the evidence only supports a narrow claim. This pattern appears in many dispute questions, especially those involving studies, research, or evidence-based arguments.
Common Traps in Dispute Questions
Avoid These Pitfalls
Don't confuse "discussing related topics" with "disagreeing about a specific point." Both speakers must take opposite positions on the same precise claim.
Never assume a speaker agrees or disagrees with something they haven't explicitly addressed. If a speaker is silent on an issue, they haven't committed to a position.
The correct answer is usually quite specific. An answer that's too general often doesn't capture the precise point of contention.
Two speakers can emphasize different aspects of an issue without actually disagreeing. They disagree only if they take incompatible positions on the same claim.
Pay attention to absolute terms (all, none, never) versus qualified terms (some, often, usually). A speaker who says "X is usually true" doesn't disagree with someone who says "X is sometimes false."
Advanced Strategies and Techniques
The Commitment Test Protocol
For every answer choice, ask these three questions:
| Question | Speaker 1 | Speaker 2 |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Is there a clear commitment? | Does Speaker 1 explicitly support or reject this claim? | Does Speaker 2 explicitly support or reject this claim? |
| 2. Are commitments opposite? | For disagreement questions: Do the speakers take incompatible positions? | |
| 3. Is this the precise issue? | Is this the most accurate statement of their disagreement, or is it too broad/narrow? | |
Paraphrasing Strategy
Before looking at answer choices, write brief summaries:
Speaker 1's Main Point: In one sentence, what is this speaker's primary claim or conclusion?
Speaker 2's Main Point: In one sentence, what is this speaker's primary claim or conclusion?
The Core Disagreement: Complete this sentence: "They disagree about whether..." or "They disagree about how much/which..."
Question Type Comparison
| Aspect | Point of Contention | Point of Agreement |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency on LSAT | Much more common (approximately 85% of dispute questions) | Less common (approximately 15% of dispute questions) |
| What to Look For | Opposite positions on the same claim | Identical positions on the same claim |
| Common Structure | Speaker 2 often explicitly disagrees with Speaker 1 | Both speakers support the same underlying premise |
| Trap Answers | Claims that only one speaker addresses | Claims that are too broad or assumptions neither explicitly makes |
| Verification Method | Can you clearly state: "Speaker 1 believes X is true; Speaker 2 believes X is false"? | Can you clearly state: "Both speakers believe X is true"? |
Practice Strategies for Mastery
Deliberate Practice Approach
- Untimed Practice First: Master the technique without time pressure before attempting timed practice. Focus on accuracy over speed initially.
- Analyze Every Wrong Answer: For each incorrect answer you select, identify why it's wrong and what mistake in reasoning led you to it.
- Review Correct Answers You Guessed: Even if you got the answer right, if you weren't confident, review it to understand the reasoning.
- Create Prediction Statements: Before looking at answer choices, predict what the disagreement is about in your own words.
- Track Pattern Recognition: Keep notes on common dispute question patterns you encounter to build mental templates.
Timing Benchmarks
Target Times for Dispute Questions:
- Initial Learning Phase: 3-4 minutes per question (accuracy focus)
- Developing Proficiency: 2-2.5 minutes per question
- Test-Day Goal: 1-1.5 minutes per question (approximately 90 seconds)
Dispute questions are typically faster to solve than other logical reasoning question types because the structure is predictable and the commitment test is straightforward once mastered.
Official LSAT Prep Resources
Law School Admission Council (LSAC) - Official Resources
Primary Official Source: LSAC Official Website
Free Official Resources:
- LawHub: Free Official LSAT Prep - Access to authentic LSAT practice questions and full PrepTests
- Sample Questions: Official Logical Reasoning Sample Questions
- Test Format Information: Official LSAT Test Format Guide
Premium Official Resources:
- LawHub Advantage: Approximately $115-120 per year for extensive PrepTest library
- Official LSAT PrepTests: Individual PrepTests and PrepTest bundles available through LSAC
- Official LSAT Prep Books: Available from major booksellers with real test questions and explanations
Khan Academy Partnership with LSAC
Free Comprehensive Prep: Khan Academy LSAT Prep
Khan Academy offers completely free LSAT preparation in partnership with LSAC, featuring:
- Official LSAT questions and PrepTests
- Personalized practice recommendations
- Video explanations for logical reasoning concepts
- Interactive lessons on dispute questions and all question types
- Full-length practice tests with scoring
Frequently Asked Questions
Two speakers disagree when they would give opposite answers to the same yes/no question. They merely emphasize different aspects when they would both answer "yes" or both answer "no" but focus on different reasons or implications. Test this by converting answer choices into yes/no questions: "Is X true?" If one speaker would say yes and the other no, that's disagreement. If both would say yes but stress different aspects, that's different emphasis, not disagreement.
LSAT dispute questions always contain a identifiable point of contention or agreement. If you can't find it, you're likely looking at too broad or too narrow a level. Try these steps: First, identify what general topic both speakers address. Second, find where the second speaker responds to or contradicts the first. Third, look for words like "but," "however," "mistaken," or "disagree" that signal the contention point. The disagreement is usually found where Speaker 2 directly challenges Speaker 1's reasoning or conclusion.
For dispute questions specifically, reading the question stem first is highly beneficial. When you know you're looking for a point of disagreement, you can actively read for opposing positions as you go through the stimulus. This makes the analysis more efficient. As you read Speaker 1, note their main claim. As you read Speaker 2, immediately identify where they challenge or contradict Speaker 1. This targeted reading approach saves time and improves accuracy on dispute questions.
This situation typically indicates you're working on a "point of agreement" question rather than a "point of contention" question. Check the question stem carefully. For agreement questions, look for underlying assumptions or premises that both speakers rely on, even if they emphasize different aspects. Both speakers must explicitly or implicitly commit to the same position. Avoid choosing overly broad statements or assumptions that seem obvious but aren't actually stated by either speaker.
"Disagree about whether" involves a yes/no question: Does X exist? Is Y true? Should Z be done? One speaker says yes, the other says no (or takes no position). "Disagree about how much" or "to what extent" involves a matter of degree: both agree X exists or Y is true, but they disagree about its magnitude, importance, or extent. For example, both speakers might agree that pure research has value, but disagree about whether its primary value comes from practical applications or knowledge expansion. This is a "how much/which aspect" disagreement, not a "whether" disagreement.
Each Logical Reasoning section contains approximately 25-26 questions. Dispute questions typically represent about 10-15% of these questions, meaning you'll usually see 2-4 dispute questions per Logical Reasoning section, or 4-8 total across both sections. Point of contention questions are far more common than point of agreement questions. Because dispute questions follow a predictable pattern, they're often considered "high-percentage" questions where you should aim for consistent accuracy.
No. Both speakers must be committed to opposite positions (for disagreement) or the same position (for agreement) on the issue in the correct answer. This commitment must be evident from what they actually say in the stimulus. While the commitment can be implicit or inferable from their statements, it must be clearly supported by the text. If you find yourself making logical leaps or assumptions about what a speaker "probably thinks," that answer is likely incorrect. The LSAT rewards careful reading of what's actually stated, not speculation about unstated beliefs.
Apply the commitment test rigorously to both remaining choices. For each choice, write out: "Speaker 1 believes [X]. Speaker 2 believes [Y]." If you can't complete both statements with confidence based on what the stimulus actually says, eliminate that choice. The correct answer will have clear textual support for both speakers' positions. Also check for scope: is one answer too broad or too narrow? The correct answer precisely captures the disagreement without overgeneralizing or being unnecessarily specific. Finally, reread the question stem to ensure you're answering the right question (disagreement vs. agreement).
Key Takeaways for LSAT Success
Essential Points to Remember
- Precision is Critical: The correct answer identifies the exact point of contention or agreement, not just a related topic or general area of discussion.
- Both Speakers Must Commit: For disagreement questions, both speakers must take clear, opposite positions. For agreement questions, both must support the same position.
- Use the Commitment Test: Always verify that you can clearly state each speaker's position on the claim in the answer choice.
- Paraphrase Before Answering: Summarize each speaker's main point in your own words before looking at answer choices.
- Watch for Scope Issues: Distinguish between "whether something is true" and "how important something is" or "to what extent something applies."
- Silence Means No Commitment: If a speaker doesn't address an issue, they haven't taken a position on it. Don't assume commitments.
- Practice with Official Materials: Use LSAC's official questions through LawHub and Khan Academy to ensure you're practicing with authentic test content.
Ready to Master LSAT Logical Reasoning?
Start practicing with official LSAT questions and track your progress toward your target score.
Access Free Official LSAT Prep Start Khan Academy LSAT PrepExplore more LSAT prep resources and worked examples at RevisionTown.com
Create a dispute question error log. Track every dispute question you miss and categorize your errors: Did you misidentify a speaker's position? Choose an answer too broad or too narrow? Fail to apply the commitment test? Recognizing your error patterns helps you improve systematically and avoid repeating mistakes on test day.