Identify the Role: Logical Reasoning Worked Examples for LSAT Prep
"Identify the role" questions, also called "argument role" or "function" questions, ask you to determine what specific function a statement plays within an argument. Unlike questions that ask you to evaluate argument quality or identify flaws, these questions are purely descriptive. Your task is to accurately categorize how a particular claim fits into the argument's logical structure.
Role questions typically represent 4-6% of all Logical Reasoning questions on the LSAT. The Law School Admission Council tests your ability to analyze argument structure by identifying whether a statement serves as the main conclusion, a premise supporting the conclusion, an intermediate conclusion, a concession to an opposing view, or another argumentative component. Mastering these questions requires strong structural analysis skills and the ability to trace how premises connect to conclusions.
Understanding Role Questions
What Makes Role Questions Unique?
Role questions are descriptive, not evaluative. You're analyzing the structure and function of statements within an argument, not judging whether the reasoning is sound or flawed. Think of yourself as an architect examining a building's blueprint, identifying what purpose each component serves in the overall structure.
The key distinction: These questions ask "What is this statement doing?" not "What is this statement saying?" Understanding content is necessary but insufficient—you must identify the statement's structural function.
How to Recognize Role Questions
Common Question Stems:
- "The claim that [STATEMENT] plays which one of the following roles in the argument?"
- "Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that [STATEMENT]?"
- "The statement that [STATEMENT] figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?"
- "In the argument, the claim that [STATEMENT] is used to..."
- "The assertion that [STATEMENT] serves which one of the following functions in the argument?"
Identifying Feature: Role questions typically quote a specific statement from the stimulus directly in the question stem, making them easy to recognize before you even read the argument.
Core Strategy for Role Questions
Five-Step Systematic Approach
Step 1Mark the Statement Before Reading
Before you read the stimulus, identify and mark the statement mentioned in the question stem. Underline it, bracket it, or highlight it so you can easily locate it while reading. This ensures you focus on its role from the start.
Step 2Identify the Main Conclusion
Find the argument's main conclusion—the primary claim the author is trying to prove. Look for conclusion indicators like "therefore," "thus," "hence," "so," or "consequently." Ask: What is the author ultimately trying to convince me of?
Step 3Map the Argument Structure
Identify all premises (evidence supporting the conclusion), intermediate conclusions (claims that are both supported by evidence and support other claims), and any opposing views or concessions. Create a mental map of how ideas connect.
Step 4Categorize the Marked Statement
Determine what role the marked statement plays. Ask these diagnostic questions:
- Is this the main conclusion?
- Does it support the conclusion? (If yes, it's a premise or subsidiary conclusion)
- Is it supported by other statements AND does it support another claim? (If yes, it's an intermediate conclusion)
- Does it represent an opposing view the author is rejecting?
Step 5Predict Before Evaluating Answers
Before looking at answer choices, state in your own simple words what role the statement plays. For example: "This is a premise that directly supports the main conclusion." Then find the answer choice that matches your prediction.
Common Statement Roles
Role 1: Main Conclusion
Definition: The primary claim the argument is trying to establish. Everything else in the argument exists to support this.
How to Identify: Often preceded by conclusion indicators. Never directly supports any other claim—only receives support. Ask: "What is the author trying to prove?"
Answer Choice Language: "It is the conclusion drawn in the argument" or "It expresses the main point the argument is designed to establish"
Role 2: Premise (Direct Support)
Definition: Evidence or reasoning offered in direct support of the conclusion. Premises are foundational claims that aren't themselves argued for within the passage.
How to Identify: Often preceded by premise indicators like "because," "since," "given that," or "for." Answers the question "Why should I believe the conclusion?"
Answer Choice Language: "It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion" or "It provides evidence for the argument's main claim"
Role 3: Intermediate/Subsidiary Conclusion
Definition: A claim that is both supported by other statements AND itself supports another claim. It's a stepping stone in the argument's reasoning chain.
How to Identify: Has evidence supporting it (so it's a conclusion of a sub-argument) but also supports the main conclusion (so it's a premise for the main argument).
Answer Choice Language: "It is a conclusion that supports the main conclusion" or "It is an intermediate conclusion used to support the argument's main point"
Visual Structure:
Role 4: Opposing View / Counterargument
Definition: A claim the author presents in order to reject or argue against it. Not the author's own position.
How to Identify: Look for phrases like "Critics argue that," "Some claim that," or "It has been said that." The author typically follows with a rebuttal.
Answer Choice Language: "It presents a view that the argument opposes" or "It is a claim that the argument seeks to refute"
Role 5: Concession
Definition: A point the author acknowledges as true, even though it might seem to weaken their position. Often followed by "but" or "however" and a stronger counterpoint.
How to Identify: Look for phrases like "Admittedly," "It is true that," or "While X may be the case." The author grants this point but argues it doesn't undermine the main conclusion.
Answer Choice Language: "It is a concession that the argument acknowledges" or "It presents a consideration that the argument accepts but argues does not undermine the conclusion"
Role 6: Background Information / Context
Definition: Information that provides context or sets up the argument but doesn't directly support the conclusion.
How to Identify: Typically appears at the beginning. Describes a situation, defines terms, or provides history without serving as evidence for the conclusion.
Answer Choice Language: "It provides context for the argument" or "It describes a phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain"
Role 7: Statement with No Logical Role
Definition: A statement that is factually present in the argument but doesn't contribute to the logical structure—neither supporting the conclusion nor being an opposing view.
How to Identify: Rare, but when present, the statement is tangential or purely illustrative without bearing on the reasoning.
Answer Choice Language: "It plays no logical role in the argument" (This answer appears occasionally and is correct when applicable)
Worked Example 1: Official LSAC Question
Driver's Seat Position and Safety
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?
Answer Choices:
Detailed Solution
Step 1Mark the Statement
The question asks about the role of: "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly."
This statement is in the third sentence of the stimulus. We've highlighted it above.
Step 2Identify the Main Conclusion
The argument begins with a question: "Does the position of a car driver's seat have a significant impact on driving safety?" The answer immediately follows: "It probably does."
This is the main conclusion. The author is arguing that seat position probably impacts safety. The word "probably" is the conclusion indicator here, and everything that follows supports this claim.
Step 3Map the Argument Structure
Let's break down the complete structure:
• Discomfort → fatigue → difficulty concentrating
• Better visibility → more awareness of conditions
Step 4Apply the "Why Should I Believe That?" Test
To determine if a statement is a premise, ask: "Does this statement answer the question 'Why should I believe the conclusion?'"
Question: Why should I believe that seat position impacts driving safety?
Answer: Because driving position affects comfort and visibility.
Yes! The marked statement directly answers why we should believe the conclusion. This confirms it's functioning as a premise.
Step 5Predict the Answer
Before looking at choices, our prediction is: "The statement is a premise that supports the main conclusion."
The marked statement provides direct evidence for why seat position affects safety. It's not the conclusion itself (that was "It probably does"), and it's not an opposing view. It's straightforward support.
AnswerWhy (E) Is Correct
Choice (E) states: "It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion drawn in the argument."
This perfectly matches our prediction. The statement about comfort and visibility is indeed offered as a reason to believe the conclusion that seat position impacts safety.
EliminationWhy Other Answers Are Wrong
(A) "It is the conclusion drawn in the argument"
The conclusion is "It probably does" (seat position probably impacts safety). The marked statement supports this conclusion rather than being the conclusion itself. We can test this: Does anything in the argument support the marked statement? Yes—the sentences about fatigue and visibility support it. Conclusions aren't supported by other claims; they only receive support.
(B) "It is a claim that the argument shows to be inconsistent with available evidence"
The argument doesn't challenge or show inconsistency with the marked statement. Instead, the argument uses this statement to support its conclusion. The author accepts it as true.
(C) "It is used to provide a causal explanation for an observed phenomenon"
There is no "observed phenomenon" being explained here. The argument is making a prediction or hypothesis about whether seat position impacts safety—not explaining something that has already been observed. The structure is "This probably happens" not "Here's why this observed thing happened."
(D) "It describes evidence that the argument ultimately refutes"
The argument doesn't refute this statement. The author relies on it as support for the conclusion. Refutation would involve arguing against or rejecting the claim, but the author embraces it.
The marked statement has a dual nature—it's supported by subsequent sentences AND it supports the main conclusion. However, the question asks about its role "in the argument" as a whole. In relation to the main conclusion, it functions as a premise. The subsequent sentences provide additional detail about how this premise works, but the marked statement's primary role is supporting the main point.
Worked Example 2: Intermediate Conclusion
Restaurant Health Inspections
Restaurant health inspections should be conducted more frequently. Studies have shown that restaurants inspected monthly have 40% fewer health violations than those inspected quarterly. More frequent inspections lead to better hygiene practices. Better hygiene practices reduce the risk of foodborne illness. Therefore, increasing inspection frequency would protect public health.
The claim that more frequent inspections lead to better hygiene practices plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
Answer Choices:
Complete Analysis
StructureIdentify All Components
Let's map the complete argument structure:
Increasing inspection frequency would protect public health
More frequent inspections lead to better hygiene practices
Studies show monthly inspections = 40% fewer violations vs quarterly
AnalysisTest the Marked Statement's Dual Role
Does it receive support? YES. The study data about 40% fewer violations supports the claim that frequent inspections lead to better hygiene.
Does it provide support? YES. This claim, combined with the statement about hygiene reducing illness, supports the main conclusion about protecting public health.
When a statement both receives and provides support, it's an intermediate conclusion—a stepping stone in the logical chain.
RecognitionHow to Spot Intermediate Conclusions
Intermediate conclusions often appear in multi-step arguments where the reasoning builds progressively:
- Pattern: Evidence → Sub-conclusion → Main conclusion
- Test 1: Can you point to evidence supporting this claim? (If yes, it's a conclusion of something)
- Test 2: Does this claim support another claim? (If yes, it's a premise for something)
- Both yes? It's an intermediate conclusion
AnswerWhy (C) Is Correct
"It is an intermediate conclusion that is supported by evidence and itself supports the main conclusion"
This precisely describes the statement's role:
- ✓ "supported by evidence" = the study data supports it
- ✓ "itself supports the main conclusion" = it's part of the reasoning chain leading to the conclusion about public health
- ✓ "intermediate conclusion" = it's both a conclusion and a premise
EliminationWhy Other Answers Fail
(A) "It is the main conclusion of the argument"
The main conclusion is the final statement about protecting public health (signaled by "Therefore"). The marked statement is a step toward that conclusion, not the ultimate point.
(B) "It is a premise that directly supports the main conclusion"
This is tempting because the statement does support the conclusion. However, it's not just a premise—it's also itself supported by the study data. A pure premise would only give support without receiving any. This statement does both.
(D) "It is background information that provides context for the argument"
Background information doesn't participate in the logical structure. This statement is integral to the reasoning—it's not just contextual setup.
(E) "It is an opposing view that the argument seeks to refute"
The author endorses this claim; it's not an opposing view. There's no indication the author disagrees with or argues against this statement.
Intermediate conclusions often appear in the middle of arguments and are introduced by words like "thus," "so," or "this means." They represent logical progress—a claim that's been established and is now being used to establish something further. Think of them as stepping stones: you need them to cross the river, but reaching them isn't your final destination.
Worked Example 3: Opposing View
Artificial Intelligence and Employment
Some economists argue that artificial intelligence will eliminate millions of jobs and create mass unemployment. However, this pessimistic view overlooks historical patterns. Every major technological revolution, from the steam engine to computers, initially displaced workers but ultimately created more jobs than it destroyed. The same will likely be true for AI. Rather than causing permanent unemployment, AI will shift workers into new roles that we cannot yet envision.
The statement that some economists argue artificial intelligence will eliminate millions of jobs and create mass unemployment plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
Answer Choices:
Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1Identify Speaker Attribution
The marked statement is attributed to "Some economists argue..." This immediately signals that it may not be the author's own view. The phrase "some economists argue" introduces an external viewpoint.
Key phrases that signal opposing views:
- "Critics claim that..."
- "Some argue that..."
- "It is often said that..."
- "Many believe that..."
Step 2Identify the Author's Response
Immediately after the marked statement, the author says: "However, this pessimistic view overlooks historical patterns."
The word "However" is a contrast indicator, and "this pessimistic view overlooks" is explicitly critical. The author is disagreeing with the economists' view.
Step 3Identify the Author's Actual Conclusion
The author's conclusion is: "Rather than causing permanent unemployment, AI will shift workers into new roles."
This directly contradicts the economists' view that AI will "create mass unemployment." The argument structure is:
Author's Rebuttal: No, this overlooks history
Author's Evidence: Past technological revolutions created more jobs
Author's Conclusion: AI will shift workers to new roles, not create permanent unemployment
AnswerWhy (D) Is Correct
"It presents a view that the argument opposes and seeks to refute"
- ✓ "presents a view" = introduces the economists' position
- ✓ "that the argument opposes" = the author disagrees (signaled by "However")
- ✓ "seeks to refute" = the entire argument is devoted to showing why this view is wrong
EliminationWhy Other Answers Are Wrong
(A) "It is the main conclusion that the argument seeks to establish"
This is the opposite of the truth. The argument seeks to reject this claim, not establish it. The main conclusion is that AI will shift workers to new roles.
(B) "It is a premise that supports the argument's main conclusion"
The marked statement doesn't support the author's conclusion—it contradicts it. The author uses historical patterns as premises, not the economists' claim.
(C) "It is an intermediate conclusion derived from historical evidence"
The economists' view is not derived from the historical evidence. In fact, the author says it "overlooks historical patterns"—the historical evidence contradicts this view.
(E) "It is a concession that the argument acknowledges before presenting counterevidence"
A concession is something the author accepts as true while arguing it doesn't undermine the conclusion. Here, the author doesn't accept the economists' view as true—the author rejects it entirely. There's no "this may be true, but..." structure here. It's "this is wrong because..."
Opposing View vs. Concession
Opposing View: The author says this is WRONG. Structure: "X says Y, but Y is incorrect because Z."
Concession: The author says this is TRUE but doesn't matter. Structure: "X may be true, but it doesn't affect my conclusion because Y."
Common Traps in Role Questions
Avoid These Pitfalls
Focus on what the statement DOES, not what it SAYS. Two statements with similar content can play different roles—one might be a conclusion while another is a premise supporting a different conclusion.
An answer choice might correctly identify part of the role but be wrong about other aspects. For example, it might correctly say a statement "supports the conclusion" but incorrectly identify WHICH conclusion it supports.
When a statement both receives and provides support, many test-takers incorrectly classify it as just a premise or just a conclusion. Look for statements that serve dual functions.
If you incorrectly identify the main conclusion, you'll likely mischaracterize other statements' roles. Always find the main conclusion first.
When multiple viewpoints appear, track carefully whose view is whose. A statement might represent an opposing view, not the author's position.
Not every statement in an argument plays a logical role in the reasoning. Some statements provide context without serving as premises or conclusions.
Role Identification Quick Reference
| Statement Role | Diagnostic Questions | Common Answer Language |
|---|---|---|
| Main Conclusion | Is this what the author ultimately wants to prove? Does it only receive support without supporting anything else? | "It is the conclusion drawn in the argument" / "It expresses the main point" |
| Premise | Does this provide evidence for the conclusion? Does it answer "Why should I believe the conclusion?" | "It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion" / "It provides evidence for the main claim" |
| Intermediate Conclusion | Is this claim supported by other statements AND does it support another claim? | "It is a subsidiary conclusion used to support the main conclusion" / "It is both supported and provides support" |
| Opposing View | Is this presented as someone else's view that the author disagrees with? | "It presents a view that the argument opposes" / "It is a claim the argument seeks to refute" |
| Concession | Does the author acknowledge this as true while arguing it doesn't undermine the conclusion? | "It is a concession that the argument acknowledges" / "It presents a point the author accepts but argues is not decisive" |
| Background/Context | Does this set up the discussion without serving as evidence or conclusion? | "It provides background information" / "It describes a phenomenon the argument seeks to explain" |
| Counterexample | Is this a specific case offered to refute a general claim? | "It provides an example that contradicts a general claim" / "It serves as a counterexample" |
| Illustration/Analogy | Is this a comparison or example used to clarify or support a claim? | "It provides an illustration of the principle" / "It offers an analogy to support the argument" |
Advanced Strategies
The "Because-Therefore" Reconstruction
Technique: Mentally rewrite the argument in "because-therefore" format to clarify relationships:
If you can insert the marked statement after "because" and it makes sense as a reason for the conclusion, it's functioning as support (either premise or intermediate conclusion).
The Support Direction Test
For each statement, ask:
- Arrow Pointing IN: Does evidence point to this statement? (If yes, it's some type of conclusion)
- Arrow Pointing OUT: Does this statement point to another claim? (If yes, it's some type of premise)
- Both Arrows: If both, it's an intermediate conclusion
- No Arrows: If neither, it's background, opposing view, or plays no logical role
Timing Strategy: Role questions are typically faster than other Logical Reasoning question types once you master structural analysis. Target 1-1.5 minutes per question.
Priority Steps:
- Mark the statement (10 seconds)
- Find main conclusion (15-20 seconds)
- Map argument structure (20-30 seconds)
- Categorize marked statement (10 seconds)
- Match to answer (15-20 seconds)
Official LSAT Prep Resources
Law School Admission Council - Official Resources
Primary Official Source: LSAC Official Website
Free Official Resources:
- LawHub Prep: Free Official LSAT Prep Platform - Authentic LSAT questions including role questions
- Sample Questions: Official Logical Reasoning Sample Questions
- Test Format Guide: Official LSAT Test Format Information
Premium Official Resources:
- LawHub Advantage: Comprehensive PrepTest library ($115-120/year)
- Official LSAT PrepTests: Real questions from past administrations with complete explanations
- LSAT SuperPrep Series: Official guides with actual tests and LSAC-written explanations
Khan Academy Free LSAT Prep
Official Partnership with LSAC: Khan Academy LSAT Preparation
Completely free LSAT prep in official partnership with LSAC:
- Identify the Role Lessons: Dedicated instruction on role questions
- Official LSAT questions organized by type
- Video explanations demonstrating structural analysis
- Interactive practice with immediate feedback
- Full-length official PrepTests with detailed analytics
Frequently Asked Questions
Apply the dual support test: (1) Is this statement supported by other statements in the argument? (2) Does this statement support another claim? If you answer YES to both questions, it's an intermediate conclusion. If you answer YES only to question 2, it's a premise. Premises provide support but don't receive it within the argument; intermediate conclusions both receive and provide support. For example, if the argument says "Studies show X, therefore Y, which means Z," then Y is an intermediate conclusion (supported by X, supports Z) while the studies are pure premises.
Try these strategies: (1) Look for conclusion indicators like "therefore," "thus," "hence," "so," or "consequently." (2) Ask "What is the author trying to convince me of?" The answer is usually the conclusion. (3) Use the "Why?" test—if you can ask "Why?" after a statement and the argument provides an answer, that statement is likely a conclusion (the "Why?" is answered by premises). (4) Identify what statement receives the most support—that's typically the main conclusion. (5) Look at the final sentence, as LSAT arguments often place conclusions there, though not always. Remember: conclusions are claims the author argues FOR, not just any claim stated.
Background information typically doesn't play a direct logical role—it provides context without serving as a premise or conclusion. However, be careful: what seems like background might actually be a premise if it's used to support the conclusion. The test is whether removing it would weaken the argument. If removing a statement would leave the argument intact (just with less context), it's background. If removing it would make the argument weaker or incomplete, it's playing a logical role. For example, "The study was conducted in 2020" might be background unless the argument relies on the recency of the study as evidence.
Some arguments have multiple conclusions in a chain, but there's still typically one MAIN conclusion that the argument is ultimately designed to establish. The main conclusion is the endpoint—everything else supports it. Other conclusions in the chain are intermediate conclusions. To identify the main conclusion: (1) Look for which conclusion is supported by everything else but doesn't itself support another claim. (2) Ask "What's the author's ultimate point?" (3) Check which conclusion comes last (though not always reliable). When the question asks about a statement's role, determine its relationship to the MAIN conclusion, not just any conclusion in the argument.
A statement plays no logical role when it doesn't contribute to the argument's reasoning structure—it neither supports the conclusion, nor is it the conclusion, nor does it represent an opposing view being refuted. This is rare but appears occasionally. For example, if an argument about economic policy includes a sentence like "The economist won the Nobel Prize in 2019," and this fact about the prize isn't used as evidence for any claim, it plays no logical role. It's merely an aside or tangential fact. Be very careful before selecting this type of answer—make sure the statement truly doesn't connect to the reasoning and isn't subtle background or context.
Speed comes from pattern recognition and systematic analysis: (1) Practice identifying conclusions quickly—spend focused time on just finding conclusions in many arguments. (2) Before reading, mark the statement the question asks about so you focus on it immediately. (3) Create mental templates for common argument structures (simple premise-conclusion, chain with intermediate conclusion, opposing view refutation). (4) Use the "because-therefore" reconstruction technique routinely until it becomes automatic. (5) Make strong predictions before looking at answer choices—this prevents you from being distracted by wrong answers. (6) Do untimed practice until accuracy is consistent, then gradually add time pressure. Role questions can be completed in 60-90 seconds once you master structural analysis.
This is a critical distinction. An OPPOSING VIEW is a position the author REJECTS as false or incorrect. The author says "X claims Y, but Y is wrong because Z." A CONCESSION is a point the author ACCEPTS as true but argues doesn't undermine the main conclusion. The author says "X may be true, but my conclusion still stands because Y." Look for these signals: Opposing view markers include "However, this view is mistaken," "But this is false," "This overlooks..." Concession markers include "Admittedly," "While it's true that," "Although X is the case..." The key difference: with a concession, the author grants the truth of the claim; with an opposing view, the author denies it.
Yes, role questions appear consistently on the LSAT, though they're less common than question types like strengthen, weaken, or assumption questions. Expect approximately 4-6 role questions across both Logical Reasoning sections, or about 2-3 per section. While they represent only about 4-6% of Logical Reasoning questions, they're considered high-value questions because they follow predictable patterns once you understand argument structure. Many test-takers find them to be reliable point opportunities after practicing structural analysis. The skills you develop for role questions—identifying conclusions and mapping argument structure—also benefit your performance on virtually every other Logical Reasoning question type.
Key Takeaways for Success
Essential Principles to Master
- Function Over Content: Focus on what a statement DOES in the argument, not what it SAYS. The same content can play different roles in different arguments.
- Main Conclusion First: Always identify the main conclusion before analyzing other statements. Everything else's role is defined by its relationship to the main conclusion.
- Map the Structure: Visualize the argument as a structure with supporting beams (premises) leading to a roof (conclusion), possibly with intermediate levels (subsidiary conclusions).
- Use Diagnostic Tests: Apply the "Why should I believe that?" test for support relationships and the dual support test for intermediate conclusions.
- Mark Before Reading: Identify the statement the question asks about before you begin reading the stimulus. This focuses your attention.
- Predict Strongly: Categorize the statement's role in simple terms before looking at answer choices. Don't let complex answer language confuse you.
- Track Multiple Voices: When arguments present opposing views, carefully distinguish the author's position from others' views.
- Practice with Official Materials: Use LSAC PrepTests through LawHub and Khan Academy to ensure authentic practice with real LSAT argument structures.
Master LSAT Argument Structure Analysis
Build your structural analysis skills with official LSAT practice questions and expert instruction.
Start Free Official LSAT Prep Practice on Khan AcademyDiscover more LSAT prep resources and worked examples at RevisionTown.com
Keep a role question analysis log. For each practice question, note: (1) the correct role, (2) how you identified it, (3) what made wrong answers incorrect. After 15-20 questions, review your log to identify patterns in your thinking. Are you consistently confusing premises with intermediate conclusions? Misidentifying opposing views? This targeted analysis reveals exactly where to focus your improvement efforts and accelerates mastery of structural analysis.