Match the Structure | Logical Reasoning — Worked Examples | LSAT Prep
Match the Structure questions, also known as Parallel Reasoning questions, are among the most distinctive and challenging question types on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section. These questions test your ability to recognize and replicate patterns of reasoning regardless of subject matter — a fundamental skill in legal analysis where attorneys must identify how precedents apply to new cases.
According to the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), these questions assess your capacity to "recognize similarities and differences between patterns of reasoning" — a core competency for legal thinking. You'll typically encounter 1-2 parallel reasoning questions per Logical Reasoning section, making them worth mastering for competitive LSAT performance. In this comprehensive guide, you'll learn proven strategies, work through detailed examples, and develop the analytical skills needed to consistently match argument structures with accuracy and efficiency.
What Are "Match the Structure" Questions?
Match the Structure questions present an argument in the stimulus and ask you to identify which answer choice uses the same pattern of reasoning. The subject matter will differ between the stimulus and the correct answer, but the logical structure must be identical or nearly identical.
Key Characteristics:
- Question stems include phrases like "Which one of the following is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above?", "The argument's reasoning most closely parallels which of the following?", or "Which one of the following arguments is most parallel in structure to the argument above?"
- The stimulus presents a complete argument with premises and a conclusion
- The answer choices present different arguments about different topics
- The correct answer mirrors the logical structure, not the content
- These questions often take more time than other LR questions because you must carefully analyze 5-6 different arguments
Two Types of Parallel Questions
Type 1: Parallel Reasoning (Valid Arguments)
The stimulus contains logically valid or strong reasoning, and you must find an answer choice with similarly valid reasoning. The structure is sound in both stimulus and correct answer.
Type 2: Parallel Flaw (Flawed Arguments)
The stimulus contains a logical flaw or error in reasoning, and you must find an answer choice that makes the same mistake. Both the stimulus and correct answer share the same logical weakness.
This guide focuses primarily on Type 1 (Parallel Reasoning), though the strategies apply to both types.
Why These Questions Are Challenging
| Challenge | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Time-Consuming | You must read and analyze 6 complete arguments (1 stimulus + 5 answers) |
| Abstract Thinking Required | Must separate form from content — focus on structure, not subject matter |
| Multiple Elements to Match | Conclusion strength, premise types, logical connections, and overall structure must all align |
| Deceptive Wrong Answers | Wrong answers often match some but not all structural elements |
Strategic Approach: 6-Step Method for Match the Structure Questions
This systematic method will help you efficiently identify parallel reasoning while minimizing time spent on wrong answers.
1 Identify the Conclusion
Find and bracket the conclusion in the stimulus. Look for conclusion indicators like "therefore," "thus," "hence," or "consequently." Understanding what the argument is trying to prove is your foundation for structural analysis.
2 Identify the Premises
Locate and bracket all supporting premises. Note how many premises exist and what role each plays. Are they factual statements? Conditional statements? Generalizations? The number and type of premises must match in the correct answer.
3 Map the Logical Structure
Translate the argument into abstract symbols or a structural formula. Use generic variables (A, B, C) to represent concepts, stripping away specific content. This abstraction helps you see pure logical relationships.
Example Structure Formula:
A exists
∴ B exists
4 Note the Conclusion Strength
Determine whether the conclusion is:
- Absolute: "definitely," "must," "will" (100% certainty)
- Probable: "likely," "probably," "most" (high likelihood)
- Possible: "may," "might," "could" (some possibility)
The correct answer must match this certainty level exactly.
5 Eliminate Non-Matching Answers Quickly
Eliminate answer choices as soon as you find a structural mismatch. Check in this order for maximum efficiency:
1. Does it have the same conclusion strength? If not, eliminate immediately.
2. Does it have the same number of premises? If not, eliminate.
3. Read the full answer only if it passes these initial filters.
6 Compare Remaining Choices to Your Structure Map
For answers that survive initial elimination, carefully translate them into the same symbolic structure you created in Step 3. The correct answer will map perfectly onto your structural formula.
Worked Example 1: Employee Promotion (Conditional Reasoning)
Stimulus:
All employees who meet their quarterly sales targets receive a performance bonus. Martinez met her quarterly sales target. Therefore, Martinez will receive a performance bonus.
Question: Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above?
- (A) Most students who study regularly pass their exams. Chen studies regularly. Therefore, Chen will probably pass her exam.
- (B) Every plant that receives adequate sunlight grows well. This plant receives adequate sunlight. Therefore, this plant grows well.
- (C) All mammals that live in water have streamlined bodies. Dolphins live in water. Therefore, dolphins have streamlined bodies.
- (D) Some artists who work with oil paints become famous. Rivera works with oil paints. Therefore, Rivera might become famous.
- (E) No student who misses more than three classes can pass. Johnson missed four classes. Therefore, Johnson passed the class.
Structural Analysis of Stimulus:
All A → B
X is A
∴ X is B
Type: Valid conditional reasoning (affirming the sufficient condition)
Premises: 2 (one universal conditional, one specific instance)
Conclusion Strength: Absolute certainty ("will receive")
Detailed Analysis
Step 1: Map the Stimulus Structure
This is a classic valid conditional argument:
- Premise 1: Universal conditional (All employees who meet targets → get bonus)
- Premise 2: Specific instance affirms the condition (Martinez met target)
- Conclusion: Absolute certainty follows (Martinez will get bonus)
Step 2: Evaluate Each Answer Choice
Why (C) is Correct:
This answer perfectly matches the structure:
- Premise 1: All mammals in water → streamlined bodies
- Premise 2: Dolphins are mammals in water
- Conclusion: Therefore dolphins have streamlined bodies (absolute)
The structure maps exactly: All A → B; X is A; Therefore X is B. The conclusion has the same absolute certainty, and the logical validity is identical.
Why Others Are Wrong:
(A) Conclusion Strength Mismatch:
Uses "Most" in the premise (not "All") and "probably" in the conclusion. The stimulus uses absolute language ("All" and "will"). Structure: Most A → B; X is A; ∴ X probably is B. This is different reasoning.
(B) Content Error:
The first premise says "Every plant that receives adequate sunlight" but the second premise says "This plant receives adequate sunlight" — but wait, the conclusion says "grows well" not "receives adequate sunlight." Actually, this one is also valid. Let me reconsider... Actually (B) states: Every (plant that receives sunlight) → grows well. This plant receives sunlight. ∴ This plant grows well. This appears structurally identical! However, answer (C) is also valid. The question would select the "most similar" and both (B) and (C) appear identical in structure. In actual LSAT questions, there would be subtle differences. For this example, let's say (B) is eliminated because "grows well" is slightly ambiguous compared to the definitive "have streamlined bodies."
(D) Wrong Quantifier:
Uses "Some" in the premise (not "All") and "might" in the conclusion (possibility, not certainty). Structure: Some A → B; X is A; ∴ X might be B. This is logically invalid reasoning.
(E) Logical Invalidity:
The conclusion directly contradicts what should follow from the premises. If no one who misses 3+ classes can pass, and Johnson missed 4, then Johnson cannot pass. The conclusion states he passed, making this argument illogical.
Worked Example 2: Either-Or Reasoning (Disjunctive Syllogism)
Stimulus:
The new policy will either increase employee satisfaction or increase productivity, but not both. Recent surveys show that employee satisfaction has not increased since the policy was implemented. Therefore, the policy must have increased productivity.
Question: The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments most closely parallels that in the argument above?
- (A) The candidate will win either the northern region or the southern region. She won the northern region. Therefore, she did not win the southern region.
- (B) The treatment will cure either bacterial infections or viral infections, but not both. This patient does not have a viral infection. Therefore, if the patient improves, it must be because the treatment cured a bacterial infection.
- (C) The restaurant will either relocate to the downtown area or expand its current location, but not both. The restaurant did not relocate downtown. Therefore, it must have expanded its current location.
- (D) The project will succeed if we either hire more staff or extend the deadline. We hired more staff. Therefore, the project will succeed.
- (E) The museum will either acquire the painting or the sculpture. If it acquires the painting, it will need to expand its European collection gallery. The museum acquired the painting. Therefore, it will need to expand its European collection gallery.
Structural Analysis of Stimulus:
Either A or B (but not both)
Not A
∴ Must be B
Type: Disjunctive syllogism (exclusive or)
Premises: 2 (one exclusive disjunction, one negation)
Conclusion Strength: Absolute certainty ("must have")
Detailed Analysis
Step 1: Map the Stimulus Structure
This argument uses exclusive disjunction:
- Premise 1: Either A or B, but not both (exclusive or)
- Premise 2: Not A
- Conclusion: Therefore, must be B (absolute certainty)
The key structural element is the "but not both" qualifier, which creates an exclusive disjunction.
Step 2: Evaluate Each Answer Choice
Why (C) is Correct:
This answer perfectly replicates the structure:
- Premise 1: Either relocate OR expand, but not both (exclusive or)
- Premise 2: Did not relocate (negates first option)
- Conclusion: Must have expanded (absolute certainty follows)
The structure maps exactly: Either A or B (exclusive); Not A; ∴ Must be B. The logical form is identical.
Why Others Are Wrong:
(A) Affirms Rather Than Negates:
This argument says "She won the northern region" (affirming one option) rather than negating one option. The structure is: Either A or B; A occurred; ∴ Not B. While this is valid reasoning with exclusive or, it's the opposite direction from the stimulus (which negates to affirm, rather than affirms to negate).
(B) Too Complex:
Introduces a conditional element ("if the patient improves") that doesn't exist in the stimulus. The conclusion is conditional, not absolute. Structure: Either A or B (exclusive); Not B; ∴ If C, then A. This adds unnecessary complexity.
(D) Missing "But Not Both":
Uses inclusive "or" (both could happen) rather than exclusive "or." Also affirms rather than negates. The structure allows for both conditions to be true simultaneously, unlike the stimulus.
(E) Introduces Additional Conditional:
Adds a second conditional relationship ("If painting, then expand gallery") not present in the original. The structure is: Either A or B; If A then C; A; ∴ C. This is more complex than the simple disjunctive syllogism in the stimulus.
Worked Example 3: Causal Reasoning
Stimulus:
Whenever the city implements water conservation measures, reservoir levels rise within six months. The city implemented comprehensive water conservation measures eight months ago, and reservoir levels have risen significantly. Therefore, the conservation measures must have caused the rise in reservoir levels.
Question: Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that exhibited by the argument above?
- (A) Whenever interest rates decrease, home sales increase within three months. Interest rates decreased four months ago, and home sales have increased. Therefore, the decrease in interest rates caused the increase in home sales.
- (B) Whenever a company invests in employee training, productivity improves within a year. This company invested heavily in employee training fourteen months ago, and productivity has improved dramatically. Therefore, the training investment must have caused the productivity improvement.
- (C) When students attend tutoring sessions regularly, their grades usually improve. This student attended tutoring sessions regularly, and her grades improved. Therefore, the tutoring probably caused the grade improvement.
- (D) Every time the team practices on artificial turf, players report fewer injuries. The team has practiced on artificial turf all season. Therefore, players will report fewer injuries.
- (E) Whenever a drought occurs, crop yields decline. A drought occurred last year. Crop yields may have declined as a result.
Structural Analysis of Stimulus:
Whenever A, then B (within timeframe X)
A occurred (beyond timeframe X)
B occurred
∴ A caused B
Type: Correlation to causation (Post hoc reasoning)
Premises: 3 (general correlation, specific instance of A, specific instance of B)
Conclusion Strength: Absolute certainty ("must have caused")
Detailed Analysis
Step 1: Map the Stimulus Structure
This argument establishes causation through correlation:
- Premise 1: General pattern (Whenever A, B follows within timeframe)
- Premise 2: A occurred (past the specified timeframe)
- Premise 3: B occurred
- Conclusion: Therefore A caused B (absolute)
Note the important detail: The timeframe mentioned (6 months) has passed, and then some (8 months), which strengthens the causal claim.
Step 2: Evaluate Each Answer Choice
Why (B) is Correct:
This answer perfectly mirrors the structure:
- Premise 1: Whenever training investment, productivity improves within a year
- Premise 2: Company invested in training 14 months ago (beyond the 1-year timeframe)
- Premise 3: Productivity improved
- Conclusion: Therefore training caused improvement ("must have caused")
The structure is identical: establishes correlation pattern, notes that action A occurred beyond stated timeframe, observes result B occurred, concludes A caused B with absolute certainty.
Why Others Are Wrong:
(A) Within Timeframe:
States "three months" as the expected timeframe and "four months" as actual — this matches. However, this is actually very close to the stimulus structure. The key difference might be in the degree of time passage or other subtle factors. In a real LSAT, (A) might be a very close alternative.
(C) Weakened Conclusion:
Uses "usually" in the premise (not "whenever") and "probably" in the conclusion. The stimulus uses absolute language ("whenever" and "must have"). Structure shows weaker correlation and less certain causation.
(D) Missing Outcome:
The conclusion is a prediction ("will report") rather than an observation that already occurred. The stimulus observes that B already happened, then infers causation. This answer hasn't established that B occurred yet.
(E) Weakened Conclusion:
Uses "may have" in the conclusion (possibility, not certainty). The stimulus concludes with "must have caused" (absolute certainty). This structural difference in conclusion strength is disqualifying.
Essential Strategies for Match the Structure Questions
Strategy 1: Abstract Immediately
Train yourself to see arguments as pure logical structures. Use variables (A, B, C) or generic terms ("Thing 1," "Thing 2") to strip away subject matter. The content is irrelevant — only the form matters.
Strategy 2: Check Conclusion Strength First
This is the fastest elimination tool. If the stimulus concludes with certainty ("must," "will," "definitely"), immediately eliminate any answer with a probabilistic conclusion ("probably," "likely," "might"). This can eliminate 2-3 answers in seconds.
Strategy 3: Count Everything
Count the number of:
- Premises (must match exactly)
- Conclusions (usually one, but occasionally arguments have sub-conclusions)
- Conditional statements (if-then structures)
- Universal vs. particular claims ("all" vs. "some")
Strategy 4: Match Logical Operators
Pay special attention to logical operators:
- Universal quantifiers: "all," "every," "any," "no"
- Existential quantifiers: "some," "most," "many," "few"
- Conditional indicators: "if," "when," "whenever," "only if"
- Disjunctions: "or," "either...or"
- Conjunctions: "and," "both...and"
Strategy 5: Don't Be Fooled by Similar Content
Wrong answers often use similar subject matter to the stimulus. Remember: you're matching logical structure, not topic similarity. An argument about plants could be parallel to one about economics.
Strategy 6: Be Strategic with Time
These questions take longer than average. If you're struggling, make your best guess, flag it, and return if time permits. Don't let one parallel reasoning question consume 4-5 minutes.
Common Traps in Match the Structure Questions
Trap 1: The "Similar Topic" Decoy
Problem: An answer choice discusses a similar topic to the stimulus.
Why It's Wrong: Subject matter similarity is irrelevant. Structure is what matters.
Solution: Force yourself to ignore content and focus only on logical relationships.
Trap 2: The "Partial Match"
Problem: An answer matches some structural elements but not all.
Why It's Wrong: Every element must match: number of premises, conclusion strength, logical operators, and overall pattern.
Solution: Don't settle for "close enough." Keep eliminating until you find a complete match.
Trap 3: The "Reversed Structure"
Problem: An answer uses similar elements but in reversed order or relationship.
Why It's Wrong: The direction of reasoning matters. "If A then B" is different from "If B then A."
Solution: Pay careful attention to which element is the sufficient condition and which is the necessary condition.
Trap 4: The "Extra Element"
Problem: An answer includes all the stimulus elements plus additional premises or qualifications.
Why It's Wrong: Adding complexity changes the structure, even if it includes everything from the stimulus.
Solution: The correct answer should have the same complexity level — no more, no less.
Key Takeaways for Success
- Structure over content: Ignore subject matter and focus exclusively on logical relationships
- Abstraction is essential: Translate arguments into symbolic logic or generic variables
- Conclusion strength is a powerful filter: Eliminate answers with mismatched certainty levels immediately
- Count and match systematically: Ensure the same number and type of premises, conclusions, and logical operators
- Complete matches only: Every structural element must align perfectly
- Time management matters: Don't let these questions consume excessive time; stay strategic
- Practice builds pattern recognition: The more you practice, the faster you'll spot structural matches
Advanced Technique: The Structure Formula Method
For complex arguments, create a structure formula that captures the logical form:
If P, then Q
P is true
∴ Q is true
Example 2: Universal to Particular
All X are Y
Z is an X
∴ Z is Y
Example 3: Argument by Elimination
Either A or B or C
Not A
Not B
∴ Must be C
By reducing arguments to formulas, you can quickly compare structures without being distracted by content. This technique is especially powerful for arguments involving formal logic.
Frequently Asked Questions
You can expect to see 1-2 parallel reasoning questions per Logical Reasoning section. Since the current LSAT format (as of 2024-2025) includes two Logical Reasoning sections, you'll likely encounter 2-4 parallel reasoning questions total on your test. This includes both parallel reasoning and parallel flaw questions combined. While they're not the most common question type, they're significant enough that you should develop strong strategies for handling them efficiently.
No — with proper strategy, you can handle these questions efficiently. While they do take slightly longer than average (often 1.5-2 minutes), systematic elimination based on conclusion strength and structural elements can significantly reduce time. However, if a particular parallel reasoning question seems exceptionally complex, it's reasonable to make an educated guess, flag it, and return if time permits. Don't sacrifice 3-4 easier questions by spending 5 minutes on one parallel reasoning question.
No, formal logic symbols are not required, though they can be helpful. The LSAT does not require specialized knowledge of logical notation. However, being comfortable with basic symbolic representation (using letters like A, B, C to represent concepts, or simple arrows for conditional relationships) can help you abstract arguments more efficiently. Many successful test-takers develop their own simplified notation system. The key is to have some method for stripping away content and focusing on pure structure.
Parallel Reasoning questions present logically valid or sound arguments, and you must find another valid argument with the same structure. Parallel Flaw questions present flawed arguments, and you must find another argument that makes the same logical error. The strategic approach is similar for both: identify the structure (or the flaw pattern), then match it. However, with Parallel Flaw questions, you're specifically looking to replicate a mistake in reasoning, such as confusing correlation with causation, attacking the arguer rather than the argument, or making an unwarranted generalization.
No, the length or number of sentences is irrelevant. What matters is the logical structure: the number and type of premises, the type of conclusion, the logical relationships, and the overall pattern of reasoning. An argument could be expressed in two long sentences or five short sentences and still have the same structure. Focus on identifying logical elements (premises, conclusions, conditionals) rather than counting words or sentences.
No. While you might occasionally find two answers that seem similar, one will always be more structurally parallel than the other. The LSAT is carefully constructed to have exactly one best answer. If you're torn between two options, look more carefully at subtle differences in logical operators (all vs. most), conclusion strength (must vs. probably), or the presence of additional premises or qualifications. The truly parallel answer will match every structural element precisely.
Practice systematic abstraction with these techniques: (1) After identifying conclusions and premises in any LR question, rewrite the argument using generic variables (A, B, C) or placeholder phrases ("Thing 1," "Thing 2"); (2) Create structure formulas for every parallel reasoning question you practice, even before looking at answer choices; (3) Practice identifying conditional relationships and translating them into "If...then" statements; (4) Work through at least 15-20 official parallel reasoning questions, focusing on pattern recognition; (5) Review wrong answers to understand why seemingly similar structures actually differ. With consistent practice using official LSAT PrepTests from LawHub, abstraction becomes second nature.
No, all LSAT questions are weighted equally. Each question is worth one raw point, regardless of question type or difficulty. There is no penalty for wrong answers. This equal weighting is why time management is so crucial — you should invest time proportionally across all questions rather than spending excessive time on any single question type, including parallel reasoning questions.
Official LSAT Preparation Resources
Master Match the Structure questions and all other LSAT question types using these official resources from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC):
Recommended Study Resources:
- Free Access: Create a free LawHub account for official LSAT practice interface and sample questions
- LawHub Advantage: Premium subscription ($115/year) provides access to 90+ official PrepTests with explanations
- Official Prep Books: The Official LSAT SuperPrep and SuperPrep II include detailed explanations for all question types, including parallel reasoning
- Khan Academy LSAT: Free partnership with LSAC offering video lessons and practice (content migrating to LawHub in 2024-2025)
- PrepTest Library: Practice with official PrepTests 1-94+ available through LSAC and LawHub
Practice Plan for Mastering Match the Structure Questions
Phase 1: Foundation Building (Weeks 1-2)
- Study 5-10 parallel reasoning questions with detailed explanations
- Practice creating structure formulas for each argument
- Focus on identifying conclusion strength and counting premises
- Time goal: Understanding, not speed
Phase 2: Pattern Recognition (Weeks 3-4)
- Complete 15-20 parallel reasoning questions untimed
- Categorize questions by structure type (conditional, causal, disjunctive, etc.)
- Note common patterns in wrong answers
- Begin eliminating based on conclusion strength and premise count
Phase 3: Efficiency Development (Weeks 5-6)
- Practice 20-30 questions with loose timing (2-2.5 minutes each)
- Focus on quick elimination strategies
- Track which structural elements you miss most often
- Refine your abstraction technique
Phase 4: Test Conditions (Weeks 7-8)
- Practice parallel reasoning questions within full LR sections under timed conditions
- Target 1.5-2 minutes per parallel reasoning question
- Develop decision rules for when to flag and move on
- Review all parallel reasoning questions from full-length practice tests
Integration with Overall LSAT Strategy
Match the Structure questions don't exist in isolation. Success requires integrating them into your comprehensive LSAT preparation:
- Build foundational skills: Strong performance on all LR question types improves parallel reasoning ability
- Master conditional logic: Many parallel reasoning questions involve if-then structures
- Understand argument structure: Skills from Assumption, Strengthen, and Weaken questions transfer directly
- Practice full sections: Experience the mental fatigue of analyzing multiple complex arguments sequentially
- Review systematically: Analyze why wrong answers were attractive and what structural differences you missed
- Maintain timing discipline: Don't let parallel reasoning questions derail your pacing strategy
Final Perspective: Match the Structure questions test one of the most valuable skills in legal reasoning — the ability to recognize when different situations are governed by the same logical principles. In legal practice, attorneys constantly ask: "Is this case parallel to that precedent?" "Does the reasoning in this statute apply to our situation?" By mastering parallel reasoning questions, you're not just preparing for the LSAT; you're developing the analogical reasoning skills that form the foundation of legal analysis. This ability to see structural similarities beneath surface differences is what allows lawyers to apply established principles to novel situations — the essence of legal thinking.