LSAT Inferences About Views: Cosmic Justice Law Passage
Master Author's View Inference Questions with Detailed Analysis, Worked Examples & Expert Strategies
Understanding View Inference Questions
Inference questions about author's views represent one of the most challenging and sophisticated question types in LSAT Reading Comprehension. Unlike recognition questions that test whether you read what was stated, or general inference questions that test logical deduction, view inference questions specifically ask you to predict what an author would likely agree with, believe, or support based on their stated positions and underlying reasoning.
These questions mirror the critical skill lawyers use daily: understanding a legal authority's reasoning in one case to predict how they would rule in a related but distinct case. The Cosmic Justice paired passages—where philosopher Thomas Sowell argues that legal systems should pursue traditional justice rather than cosmic justice—provide an ideal framework for mastering this essential LSAT skill.
Three Types of View Inference Questions
Type 1: Direct Agreement Questions
Question Stems:
- "The author would most likely agree with which of the following?"
- "Based on the passage, Sowell would probably support..."
- "The passage suggests that the author believes..."
Strategy:
Identify the author's core principles and values. The correct answer will be consistent with these principles, even if it addresses a scenario not explicitly discussed in the passage.
Type 2: Application to New Scenarios
Question Stems:
- "Sowell would most likely view [new scenario] as..."
- "The author's argument implies that in cases where..."
- "Based on the reasoning in the passage, the author would likely object to..."
Strategy:
Apply the author's reasoning to the new scenario. If the author argues X because of principle Y, determine whether the new scenario aligns with or violates principle Y.
Type 3: Comparative View Questions (Paired Passages)
Question Stems:
- "Both authors would likely agree with which of the following?"
- "The author of Passage A would most likely respond to Passage B's argument by..."
- "Unlike the author of Passage A, Sowell (Passage B) would probably..."
Strategy:
Identify each author's position and determine where they align or diverge. For "both would agree," find principles shared by both passages. For comparative questions, understand how their reasoning differs.
The LSAT Inference Spectrum: From Recognition to Speculation
Understanding where view inferences fall on the spectrum from explicit statements to pure speculation is crucial:
✓ Explicit Statement (Recognition)
Example: "Sowell states that cosmic justice requires omniscience"
Support: Directly quoted or paraphrased from passage
✓ Strong Inference (One Step)
Example: "Sowell would likely agree that legal systems cannot achieve perfect justice"
Support: Follows directly from stated position that humans lack omniscience required for perfect justice
⚠ Moderate Inference (Valid but Requires Care)
Example: "Sowell would probably support a justice system that emphasizes procedural fairness over outcome equality"
Support: Requires applying his principles about traditional justice to a new policy question
✗ Weak Inference (Too Many Steps)
Example: "Sowell would support reducing government intervention in all social policy"
Problem: Requires multiple assumptions beyond passage scope
✗ Speculation (Not Supported)
Example: "Sowell believes religious principles should guide legal decisions"
Problem: Introduces topic never addressed; no passage support
The Golden Zone for LSAT View Inferences
Correct answers fall in the Strong Inference or Moderate Inference zones—one logical step beyond explicit statements, firmly grounded in passage content, requiring no outside assumptions.
Sowell's Position in Cosmic Justice: Foundation for Inferences
Sowell's Core Argument (Passage B)
Explicit Statements:
- Main Claim: Legal systems should focus on traditional justice (fair processes) rather than cosmic justice (perfect outcomes)
- Key Reason: Cosmic justice requires omniscience—knowing all relevant circumstances and factors
- Human Limitation: Humans lack and cannot acquire omniscience
- Traditional Justice Definition: Concerns impartial processes—fair rules, impartial judges/juries
- Cosmic Justice Definition: Perfect justice that accounts for all circumstances; "fundamentally different concept" from traditional justice
Underlying Principles (For Inference):
Principle 1: Epistemic Limitation
Human knowledge is inherently limited. Legal systems should not pursue goals that require knowledge humans cannot possess.
Principle 2: Process Over Outcome
Justice should be judged by the fairness of procedures, not the perfection of results.
Principle 3: Achievability Constraint
Legal institutions should pursue only those forms of justice that are realistically achievable by humans.
Inference Foundation:
These three principles form the foundation for valid inferences about Sowell's views. Any answer choice consistent with these principles is likely correct; any that violates them is likely wrong.
6-Step Method for View Inference Questions
Step 1: Extract the Author's Core Principles
Don't just identify what the author concludes—understand why they reach that conclusion. The underlying principles allow you to predict views on related topics.
Application to Cosmic Justice:
Surface Level (What):
"Sowell argues against pursuing cosmic justice in legal systems"
Deep Level (Why - Principles):
- Institutions should only pursue achievable goals
- Perfect information is unattainable for humans
- Procedural fairness is more important than perfect outcomes
- Justice doesn't require accounting for all circumstances
Practice Drill:
After reading any passage, write down 2-3 underlying principles that drive the author's argument. These principles are your inference roadmap.
Step 2: Apply the Consistency Test
The correct answer must be consistent with everything the author stated or implied. If it contradicts any part of the author's position, it's wrong.
Consistency Test Formula:
For Each Answer Choice, Ask:
- Does this contradict any explicit statement in the passage? → If YES, eliminate
- Does this violate any of the author's underlying principles? → If YES, eliminate
- Could the author reasonably hold this view given their argument? → If NO, eliminate
- Is this view a natural extension of the author's reasoning? → If YES, keep as contender
Example - Testing Consistency:
Answer Choice: "Sowell would agree that legal systems should always strive for the most just outcome possible"
❌ WRONG: Violates his principle that systems should pursue achievable goals (traditional justice), not perfect outcomes (cosmic justice)
Step 3: Use Analogical Reasoning
Many view inference questions present scenarios analogous to what's discussed in the passage. Apply the author's reasoning by analogy.
Analogical Reasoning Structure:
Passage Scenario:
"Legal systems should focus on fair processes (traditional justice) rather than perfect outcomes (cosmic justice) because humans lack omniscience"
New Scenario in Question:
"Should schools use standardized test scores (objective process) or holistic review accounting for all life circumstances (comprehensive outcome)?"
Analogical Application:
If Sowell prioritizes achievable, process-based justice over comprehensive but impossible perfect justice, he would likely prefer standardized metrics over attempting to account for all circumstances—which would require impossible complete knowledge.
Step 4: Eliminate Scope Violations
Wrong answers often go beyond the author's scope—introducing topics never addressed or making claims more extreme than the author would support.
Common Scope Violations:
❌ Too Broad
Sowell discusses legal systems → Wrong answer about "all social institutions"
❌ New Topic
Passage never mentions religion → Wrong answer about "religious principles in law"
❌ Too Extreme
Sowell prefers traditional justice → Wrong answer: "cosmic justice is always harmful"
❌ Reversal
Sowell emphasizes processes → Wrong answer: "outcomes don't matter at all"
Step 5: Watch for Qualifier Changes
Subtle changes in qualifiers (some → all, usually → always, should → must) can turn a valid inference into a wrong answer.
Qualifier Trap Examples:
✓ Valid Inference:
"Sowell would likely agree that legal systems generally should prioritize fair procedures over comprehensive outcome assessments"
❌ Too Strong:
"Sowell would agree that legal systems must always prioritize procedures over outcomes in every case"
The qualifier "must always...in every case" is too absolute. Sowell makes a general argument, not an exceptionless universal claim.
Step 6: Ground Inference in Textual Evidence
Before selecting your answer, identify which specific passage statements support this inference. You should be able to trace a clear logical path from passage to answer.
Evidence-Linking Formula:
Statement Chain:
- Passage states: [Quote or paraphrase specific sentence]
- This implies: [Direct logical consequence]
- Therefore, author would likely agree: [Your answer choice]
If you cannot complete this chain with one clean logical step, the inference is probably too weak or unsupported.
Worked Examples: View Inference Questions
Example 1: Direct Agreement Question
Question:
"Based on Passage B, Sowell would most likely agree with which of the following statements about justice in legal systems?"
Answer Choices:
(A) A just legal system must account for all factors that contribute to a defendant's actions
(B) Justice requires that similarly situated defendants receive identical punishments
(C) ✓ CORRECT: A defendant who receives a fair trial has received justice, regardless of whether all circumstances were considered
(D) Legal systems should continuously refine their ability to consider more factors in rendering verdicts
(E) Perfect justice is achievable if legal institutions invest sufficient resources in investigation
Detailed Analysis:
Why (C) is Correct:
Textual Support: Sowell explicitly states in Passage B: "A defendant has received justice if the trial was conducted under fair rules with an impartial judge and jury."
Inference Path: Sowell defines traditional justice by fair processes, NOT by comprehensive consideration of circumstances. Answer (C) directly applies this principle—justice is achieved through fair trial procedures, regardless of whether "all circumstances were considered" (which would be cosmic justice).
This is a valid inference because: It's one logical step from Sowell's explicit statement. He says fair process = justice; (C) says fair trial = justice even without comprehensive circumstance review. This directly follows from his traditional vs. cosmic justice distinction.
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(A) - Contradicts Sowell's Argument:
This describes cosmic justice (accounting for all factors), which Sowell explicitly argues against. He says justice does NOT require this—it requires fair processes instead.
(B) - Not Supported:
Sowell doesn't discuss outcome equality or identical punishments. This introduces a new concept (similar cases → identical results) not addressed in his argument about procedural vs. comprehensive justice.
(D) - Violates Core Principle:
"Continuously refine ability to consider more factors" moves toward cosmic justice—exactly what Sowell argues against. He believes systems should focus on fair processes, not expand factor consideration.
(E) - Directly Contradicts Passage:
Sowell explicitly argues that perfect justice (cosmic justice) is impossible because it requires omniscience, which no amount of resources can provide. This directly contradicts his core claim.
Example 2: Application to New Scenario
Question:
"Based on the reasoning in Passage B, Sowell would most likely view a proposal to make legal decisions based on comprehensive life-history assessments for each individual as:"
Answer Choices:
(A) A necessary evolution toward more humane and compassionate justice
(B) Valuable in principle but requiring better data collection methods
(C) ✓ CORRECT: Misguided because it pursues a form of justice that requires knowledge humans cannot possess
(D) Appropriate for serious crimes but unnecessary for minor offenses
(E) A supplement to, rather than replacement for, traditional procedural justice
Detailed Analysis:
Why (C) is Correct:
Analogical Reasoning: The proposal described—"comprehensive life-history assessments for each individual"—is essentially cosmic justice: attempting to account for all circumstances to achieve perfect justice.
Sowell's Principle Applied: Sowell argues that cosmic justice requires omniscience—complete knowledge of all relevant factors. A "comprehensive life-history assessment" would require knowing and properly weighing everything relevant about a person's life, which is exactly the kind of perfect knowledge Sowell says is impossible.
Inference Path: (1) Sowell says cosmic justice requires omniscience humans lack → (2) Comprehensive life assessment requires complete knowledge of circumstances → (3) Therefore, Sowell would view this proposal as pursuing unattainable knowledge → (4) He would call it "misguided"
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(A) - Opposite of Sowell's View:
Sowell would not view comprehensive assessment as "necessary evolution." He explicitly argues against evolving toward cosmic justice—legal systems should stick with achievable traditional justice.
(B) - Misses the Point:
Sowell's objection isn't about data collection methods—it's about the impossibility of omniscience. Better data doesn't solve the fundamental problem that complete knowledge is unattainable.
(D) - Not Supported by Passage:
Sowell makes no distinction between serious and minor crimes regarding justice types. His argument is about the nature of achievable justice, not about when cosmic justice might be appropriate.
(E) - Violates Sowell's Principle:
Sowell argues that traditional justice and cosmic justice are "fundamentally different concepts"—not that cosmic justice should supplement traditional justice. He advocates abandoning cosmic justice pursuit, not supplementing with it.
Example 3: Comparative View (Paired Passages)
Question:
"Both the author of Passage A and Sowell (Passage B) would most likely agree with which of the following?"
Answer Choices:
(A) Achieving perfect justice is the ultimate goal of any legal system
(B) ✓ CORRECT: Human knowledge limitations prevent legal systems from accounting for all relevant factors in every case
(C) Traditional justice is morally superior to cosmic justice
(D) Legal systems should continuously strive to approximate cosmic justice
(E) The distinction between traditional and cosmic justice is not meaningful
Detailed Analysis:
Why (B) is Correct:
Passage A Support: Passage A states that "inherent human limitations make it impossible to achieve this type of justice [cosmic justice] through human law." This explicitly affirms that human limitations prevent comprehensive factor consideration.
Passage B Support: Sowell explains that cosmic justice "would require knowing everyone's circumstances" and "everything relevant," then emphasizes that "only an omniscient observer could make such determinations"—which humans are not.
Shared Ground: Both passages agree on the factual claim that human knowledge limitations exist and prevent complete factor consideration. This is the foundation both authors build upon, even though Passage A is descriptive while Passage B is prescriptive.
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(A) - Contradicts Passage B:
Sowell explicitly argues that legal systems should NOT pursue perfect justice (cosmic justice) as their goal. Only Passage A might remain neutral; Sowell clearly disagrees.
(C) - Too Strong:
Neither passage makes a moral superiority claim. They argue traditional justice is more achievable or appropriate for human institutions, not morally superior in an absolute sense.
(D) - Contradicts Both Passages:
Both passages argue that cosmic justice is impossible to achieve due to human limitations. "Continuously strive to approximate" it contradicts the core argument that it's an inappropriate goal for human systems.
(E) - Contradicts Both Passages:
Both passages spend significant effort explaining and emphasizing the distinction between traditional and cosmic justice. Passage B explicitly calls them "fundamentally different concepts."
Common Traps in View Inference Questions
❌ Trap #1: The "Sounds Good" Trap
Answer choices that sound reasonable, wise, or that you personally agree with—but that aren't supported by the author's specific argument.
Example:
"Sowell would agree that justice requires balancing individual rights with collective welfare"
→ Sounds reasonable, but Sowell never discusses individual vs. collective balance. This introduces a new framework not in the passage.
❌ Trap #2: The "Real World Author" Trap
Using your knowledge of the real author's broader views rather than what's stated in this specific passage.
Example:
If you know Thomas Sowell's political philosophy from his other works, DON'T use that knowledge. Base inferences solely on what's stated in the LSAT passage.
❌ Trap #3: The "Too Many Steps" Trap
Answers requiring multiple logical leaps or combining several inferences.
Example:
(1) Sowell prefers traditional justice → (2) Traditional justice emphasizes procedures → (3) Procedures are rule-based → (4) Rules require enforcement → (5) "Therefore, Sowell would support strong police powers"
→ Each step may be reasonable, but five steps is too many. Valid LSAT inferences are 1-2 steps maximum.
❌ Trap #4: The "Half-Right" Trap
Answer choices that start correctly but end with an unsupported or contradictory claim.
Example:
"Sowell believes traditional justice focuses on fair procedures, which ultimately produces better outcomes than cosmic justice would"
→ First half is right (traditional justice focuses on procedures), but second half (produces better outcomes) adds an unsupported comparative outcome claim.
❌ Trap #5: The "Reverse Logic" Trap
Confusing what the author argues FOR with what follows logically. Just because the author opposes X doesn't mean they support the opposite of X.
Example:
Sowell argues against cosmic justice (perfect outcomes) → "Therefore, Sowell believes outcomes are irrelevant to justice"
→ WRONG. He argues against pursuing PERFECT outcomes requiring omniscience, not against caring about outcomes at all.
❌ Trap #6: The "Extreme Extrapolation" Trap
Taking the author's argument to an extreme they never endorsed.
Example:
Sowell argues cosmic justice is impossible for legal systems → "Therefore, Sowell would agree that humans should never attempt to understand others' circumstances"
→ Too extreme. He argues legal systems shouldn't base justice on comprehensive circumstance assessment, not that understanding is never valuable.
3-Week Mastery Plan for View Inference Questions
Week 1: Foundation Building
- Days 1-2: Study the distinction between recognition, inference, and view inference questions using Khan Academy videos
- Days 3-4: For 5 passages, identify the author's core principles and underlying reasoning
- Days 5-6: Practice predicting what authors would agree with BEFORE looking at answer choices
- Day 7: Complete 3 passages focusing only on view inference questions; review thoroughly
Week 2: Pattern Recognition
- Days 8-10: For every wrong answer on view inference questions, identify which trap you fell for
- Days 11-12: Practice the consistency test: verify each answer against author's explicit statements AND principles
- Days 13-14: Focus on paired passages (like Cosmic Justice); practice comparative view questions
Week 3: Integration & Speed
- Days 15-17: Complete 2 full RC sections under timed conditions
- Days 18-19: For each view inference question, write out the inference chain: passage → principle → answer
- Days 20-21: Final practice with law passages specifically; master analogical reasoning for new scenarios
Success Metrics
By the end of 3 weeks, you should:
- Score 85%+ accuracy on view inference questions in untimed practice
- Score 75%+ accuracy on view inference questions in timed sections
- Identify author's core principles within 30 seconds of finishing a passage
- Eliminate 2-3 wrong answers immediately based on inconsistency or scope violations
- Explain the inference chain for every correct answer you select
Official LSAT Preparation Resources
LSAC Official PrepTests
The Law School Admission Council publishes official materials containing authentic past LSATs:
- The Official LSAT SuperPrep Series — Includes full explanations for all question types including view inferences
- The New Official LSAT TriplePrep — Three full PrepTests per volume with authentic RC passages
- Individual PrepTests — 90+ official exams, each with approximately 8-10 inference questions
- LSAT Reading Comprehension Official Guide — Strategies and practice focused on RC question types
LawHub (LSAC Digital Platform)
LawHub is LSAC's official digital LSAT prep platform with authentic test materials:
- Digital LSAT Practice Interface — Practice with the same interface used on test day
- 70+ Official PrepTests — Access to decades of authentic LSAT questions
- Question Analysis Tools — Filter by question type to focus on view inferences
- Performance Analytics — Track your accuracy trends on inference questions over time
- Free Trial Available — Test the platform before purchasing a subscription
Essential Takeaways: Mastering View Inferences
- Understand underlying principles: View inferences require identifying not just what the author concludes, but WHY—the principles and reasoning that drive their argument
- Apply the consistency test: Correct answers must be consistent with ALL of the author's stated positions and underlying principles—no contradictions allowed
- Stay within scope: Valid inferences extend the author's reasoning by one logical step, not multiple leaps, and stay within the topics the author actually addressed
- Watch for qualifiers: "Some" vs. "all," "usually" vs. "always," "should" vs. "must"—subtle qualifier changes turn valid inferences into wrong answers
- Use analogical reasoning: When questions present new scenarios, apply the author's principles by analogy to determine their likely view
- Avoid common traps: Don't choose answers that sound good, reflect the real author's broader views, or match your own opinions—only what follows from THIS passage
- Ground inferences in text: You should be able to trace a clear logical path from specific passage statements through underlying principles to your answer
- For paired passages: Note carefully which author the question asks about—Passage A author, Passage B author (subject), or both
- Conservative extension: The LSAT rewards conservative, well-supported inferences over dramatic or exciting logical leaps
- Practice with official materials: Khan Academy and LSAC PrepTests provide authentic view inference questions with detailed explanations
Quick Decision Tree for View Inference Questions
Use This Decision Tree for Every Answer Choice
Question 1: Does this contradict anything the author stated?
If YES → ELIMINATE immediately
If NO → Continue to Question 2
Question 2: Is this consistent with the author's underlying principles?
If NO → ELIMINATE
If YES → Continue to Question 3
Question 3: Does this stay within the passage's scope and topic range?
If NO (introduces new topics or goes too broad) → ELIMINATE
If YES → Continue to Question 4
Question 4: Can I trace a clear logical path from passage to this answer?
If NO (requires multiple steps or assumptions) → PROBABLY WRONG
If YES (one clear step) → Continue to Question 5
Question 5: Can I point to specific passage content supporting this?
If NO → Reconsider or eliminate
If YES → ✓ STRONG CONTENDER
Pro Tip:
If multiple answers pass all 5 questions, choose the one requiring the SMALLEST logical step from passage to answer. The LSAT rewards conservative, tightly-supported inferences.
Advanced Strategies for 170+ Scorers
Strategy 1: Pre-phrase Expected Answers
Before reading answer choices, predict what the author would likely agree with based on their principles. This prevents you from being seduced by attractive wrong answers.
Example Process:
Question: "Sowell would most likely agree with..."
Pre-phrase: "Something about preferring achievable process-based justice over impossible comprehensive justice"
Then scan answers for this concept, eliminating everything else.
Strategy 2: Identify Principle Hierarchies
Some principles are foundational (core values), others are applications. Understanding this hierarchy helps when principles seem to conflict.
For Sowell's Cosmic Justice Argument:
Foundation: Institutions should pursue only achievable goals
Application 1: Humans lack omniscience
Application 2: Therefore, pursue traditional (process) not cosmic (outcome) justice
Strategy 3: Map Argumentative Commitment
When an author makes an argument, they're logically committed to certain implications. Identify these commitments to predict views.
Example Commitment Chain:
If Sowell argues: "Cosmic justice requires omniscience humans lack"
He's committed to: Any proposal requiring complete knowledge is inappropriate for human institutions
Therefore: He'd oppose comprehensive life assessments, total circumstance accounting, perfect information requirements, etc.
Strategy 4: Recognize Implicit Contrasts
When an author argues FOR one position, they often implicitly argue AGAINST contrasting positions. Recognize these implicit rejections.
Sowell's Implicit Contrasts:
Argues FOR: Process-based justice
Implicitly AGAINST: Outcome-based justice evaluation
Argues FOR: Achievable institutional goals
Implicitly AGAINST: Idealistic but impossible aspirations
Master LSAT View Inferences Today
Transform your LSAT Reading Comprehension score by mastering inference questions about author's views. Start practicing with official materials and develop the analytical reasoning skills essential for law school success.