LSAT Principles Questions: Cosmic Justice Law Passage
Master Underlying Principles in Legal Reasoning with Detailed Analysis, Worked Examples & Expert Strategies
Understanding LSAT Principle Questions
Principle questions represent the most philosophically sophisticated question type in LSAT Reading Comprehension. While recognition questions test whether you understood what was stated, and inference questions test whether you can derive logical conclusions, principle questions test whether you can identify the general rules and abstract frameworks that structure an author's reasoning.
These questions ask you to move from the specific to the universal—to recognize that when Sowell argues "legal systems should not pursue cosmic justice because it requires impossible omniscience," he's exemplifying a broader principle about institutional design: "Institutions should not pursue goals that require capabilities they cannot possess." This is the essence of legal reasoning and philosophical analysis.
The Cosmic Justice paired passages provide an ideal framework for mastering principle questions because Sowell's argument is fundamentally principle-driven. His specific conclusion about legal justice stems from general philosophical commitments about epistemology, institutional capability, achievability, and the proper role of human judgment.
What Are Principles in LSAT Context?
Definition and Characteristics
A principle is:
- General: Applies across multiple situations, not just one specific case
- Abstract: Expressed at a level removed from concrete particulars
- Prescriptive or Descriptive: States what should be done or how things generally work
- Foundational: Underlies and supports specific claims and conclusions
- Transferable: Can be applied to scenarios beyond those explicitly discussed
Mathematical Representation:
If we represent a specific claim as \( S \) (cosmic justice requires omniscience) and a principle as \( P \) (institutions should not pursue goals requiring impossible capabilities), then:
\( P \) is a general rule where \( S \) is a particular instance
\( S \subset P \) (S is a member of the set of cases covered by P)
Example from Cosmic Justice:
Specific Claim:
"Legal systems should focus on traditional justice (fair processes) rather than cosmic justice (perfect outcomes)"
Underlying Principle:
"Institutions should pursue goals they can actually achieve rather than ideals that require impossible capabilities"
Why this is a principle:
This rule could apply to education systems, healthcare institutions, economic policy, or any institutional design—not just legal systems. It's general, transferable, and foundational to Sowell's entire argument.
The Abstraction Ladder: From Specific to Universal
Understanding principles requires navigating different levels of abstraction. Here's how claims move from concrete specifics to universal principles:
Level 1: Concrete Specific
"The American legal system cannot render cosmic justice because American judges are not omniscient"
Most specific—names particular system, particular concept
Level 2: Category Specific
"Legal systems cannot render cosmic justice because human judges lack omniscience"
More general—applies to all legal systems, not just American
Level 3: Domain Principle
"Institutions cannot achieve goals that require capabilities beyond human capacity"
Generalizes beyond legal systems to all institutions
Level 4: Universal Principle
"One should not pursue goals that require impossible capabilities"
Most abstract—applies to any agent pursuing any goal
The "Goldilocks Zone" for LSAT Principles
LSAT principle questions typically target Level 3 (Domain Principle) or Level 4 (Universal Principle)—general enough to apply beyond the specific case, but not so abstract as to be meaningless. They want you to generalize from particulars without over-generalizing.
Core Principles in Cosmic Justice Passages
Sowell's Underlying Philosophical Principles
Principle 1: Epistemic Humility
Statement:
"Agents should recognize and accept the inherent limitations of their knowledge"
Application in Passage:
Sowell argues humans must acknowledge they cannot know "all relevant things" or "everything relevant for determining what each person truly deserved." This epistemic limitation is fundamental to his entire argument.
Principle 2: Achievability Constraint
Statement:
"Institutions should pursue only those goals that are actually achievable given their capabilities"
Application in Passage:
Since cosmic justice requires omniscience and human institutions lack this capability, they should not pursue cosmic justice. This is a practical constraint based on capability matching.
Principle 3: Process Over Perfect Outcomes
Statement:
"When perfect outcomes are unattainable, institutions should focus on fair, impartial processes rather than attempting comprehensive outcome optimization"
Application in Passage:
Traditional justice emphasizes "impartial processes" and "fair rules with an impartial judge and jury"—focusing on procedural fairness rather than perfect substantive outcomes.
Principle 4: Practical Philosophy
Statement:
"Theoretical ideals should not dictate institutional design if they require capabilities that cannot exist in practice"
Application in Passage:
Even though cosmic justice might be theoretically ideal (perfectly fair), its practical impossibility means institutions should adopt achievable alternatives (traditional justice).
Principle 5: Categorical Difference Recognition
Statement:
"Some distinctions are not merely matters of degree but represent fundamentally different categories requiring different approaches"
Application in Passage:
Sowell explicitly states cosmic and traditional justice are "fundamentally different concepts," not points on a continuum. They require categorically different institutional approaches.
Three Types of Principle Questions
Type 1: Identify Underlying Principle
Question Stems:
- "Which principle underlies the author's argument?"
- "The reasoning most closely conforms to which principle?"
- "The author's position is most consistent with which general proposition?"
Strategy:
Extract the general rule that explains why the author moves from premises to conclusion. Ask: What general guideline makes this argument work?
Type 2: Apply Principle to New Case
Question Stems:
- "The principle illustrated by the author's reasoning would also support..."
- "Which scenario best exemplifies the principle underlying the passage?"
- "The author's approach would most likely apply to..."
Strategy:
First identify the principle, then find the answer choice that represents an analogous application of that same general rule to a different context.
Type 3: Illustrative Example of Principle
Question Stems:
- "The discussion of [specific topic] primarily serves to illustrate..."
- "The author's example demonstrates which general principle?"
- "The passage uses [case] to illustrate which proposition?"
Strategy:
Determine what broader point the specific example is meant to demonstrate. Move from the concrete example to the abstract lesson it teaches.
6-Step Method for Principle Questions
Step 1: Map the Argument Structure
Identify the author's main conclusion and the premises supporting it. Principles are the bridges connecting premises to conclusions.
Argument Structure from Cosmic Justice:
Premise 1:
Cosmic justice requires omniscience (complete knowledge of all relevant factors)
Premise 2:
Humans/legal systems do not and cannot possess omniscience
Conclusion:
Legal systems should pursue traditional justice (achievable) not cosmic justice (unachievable)
Underlying Principle (the bridge):
Institutions should not pursue goals that require capabilities they cannot possess
Step 2: Abstract from Specifics
Remove specific terms and replace them with general categories. Move up the abstraction ladder.
Abstraction Process:
Specific → General (Step 1):
"Legal systems" → "Institutions"
Specific → General (Step 2):
"Cosmic justice" → "Perfect comprehensive outcomes"
Specific → General (Step 3):
"Omniscience" → "Impossible capabilities"
Result:
"Institutions should not pursue perfect comprehensive outcomes that require impossible capabilities"
Step 3: Test Principle Scope
Ensure your principle is neither too narrow (only applies to passage case) nor too broad (applies to everything meaninglessly).
Scope Testing Framework:
❌ Too Narrow:
"Legal systems in democratic countries should avoid pursuing cosmic justice"
Problem: Only applies to one specific type of legal system in one political context
✓ Just Right:
"Institutions should not pursue goals requiring capabilities they cannot possess"
Strength: General enough to apply beyond legal systems, specific enough to be meaningful
⚠ Too Broad:
"People should not try to do impossible things"
Problem: So general it's almost meaningless—doesn't capture the institutional design emphasis
Step 4: Verify Principle Explains Multiple Parts
A valid principle should explain not just one claim but multiple elements of the author's reasoning. Test whether your principle unifies the argument.
Unification Test:
Does this principle explain why the author...
- Rejects cosmic justice for legal systems? ✓
- Emphasizes human epistemic limitations? ✓
- Advocates for traditional justice? ✓
- Distinguishes processes from outcomes? ✓
- Calls them "fundamentally different concepts"? ✓
If your principle explains all of these → You've identified the right principle
Step 5: Distinguish Principles from Conclusions
Don't confuse what the author concludes with the principles underlying their reasoning. Principles support conclusions; they don't equal conclusions.
Principle vs. Conclusion:
NOT Principles (Conclusions):
- "Legal systems should use traditional justice"
- "Cosmic justice is impossible"
- "Fair trials constitute justice"
These are specific conclusions reached by applying principles
ARE Principles (General Rules):
- "Pursue achievable goals"
- "Recognize knowledge limits"
- "Match methods to capabilities"
These are general rules that generate the specific conclusions
Step 6: Apply Principle Test
For application questions, test whether the answer choice represents an analogous case where the same principle applies.
Analogical Application Test:
Question: Which scenario illustrates the same principle?
Principle from Passage:
"Institutions should not pursue goals requiring impossible capabilities"
✓ Valid Analogy:
"An education system should not aim to teach every student identically when students have fundamentally different learning capacities"
✗ Invalid (Different Principle):
"An education system should measure outcomes rather than processes" ← This applies a different principle about measurement, not capability constraints
Worked Examples: Principle Questions
Example 1: Identify Underlying Principle
Question:
"Which principle most accurately describes the reasoning underlying Sowell's argument in Passage B?"
Answer Choices:
(A) Moral ideals should guide practical decision-making even when they cannot be fully realized
(B) ✓ CORRECT: Institutions should design their practices around goals they can actually achieve rather than theoretical ideals requiring impossible capabilities
(C) Procedural fairness is inherently more valuable than substantive justice
(D) Perfect knowledge is unnecessary for making just decisions in most circumstances
(E) Legal systems should prioritize efficiency over comprehensiveness
Detailed Analysis:
Why (B) is Correct:
Principle Extraction Process:
Sowell's Specific Argument:
Legal systems should pursue traditional justice (fair processes) rather than cosmic justice (perfect comprehensive outcomes) because cosmic justice requires omniscience humans cannot possess.
Abstraction to General Principle:
• "Legal systems" → "Institutions"
• "Traditional justice" → "Achievable practices"
• "Cosmic justice" → "Theoretical ideals"
• "Omniscience humans lack" → "Impossible capabilities"
Why This Principle Unifies the Argument: This principle explains why Sowell rejects cosmic justice (it's a theoretical ideal requiring impossible omniscience), why he advocates traditional justice (it's achievable with human capabilities), and why he emphasizes the fundamental difference (one is achievable, the other isn't). It captures the core logic at the right level of abstraction.
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(A) - Contradicts Sowell's Position:
Sowell argues that when moral ideals (cosmic justice) cannot be realized, institutions should NOT let them guide decisions—instead, pursue achievable alternatives. This is the opposite of his view.
(C) - Makes Value Judgment Not in Passage:
Sowell doesn't argue procedural fairness is "inherently more valuable"—he argues it's more achievable. His reasoning is pragmatic (what's possible) not axiological (what's inherently better).
(D) - Wrong Scope:
"In most circumstances" weakens the claim incorrectly. Sowell's point is stronger: perfect knowledge is impossible for humans, period. Also "unnecessary" misstates his view—it's impossible, not just unnecessary.
(E) - Introduces Irrelevant Concept:
Sowell never discusses "efficiency" as a value or goal. His argument is about achievability and capability matching, not efficiency optimization. This imports a concept foreign to his reasoning.
Example 2: Apply Principle to New Scenario
Question:
"The principle underlying Sowell's reasoning would most strongly support which of the following?"
Answer Choices:
(A) A teacher should grade students based on their final exam performance rather than considering their background circumstances
(B) A healthcare system should aim to provide equal health outcomes for all citizens regardless of cost
(C) ✓ CORRECT: An economic policy should focus on creating fair market rules rather than attempting to engineer specific income distributions for all citizens
(D) A hiring manager should select candidates based solely on merit without considering any contextual factors
(E) A criminal justice system should impose identical sentences for identical crimes in all cases
Detailed Analysis:
Why (C) is Correct:
Principle Application Analysis:
Core Principle:
"Focus on achievable procedural fairness rather than attempting comprehensive outcome control that requires impossible knowledge"
Structural Analogy:
| Cosmic Justice Passage | Economic Policy (Answer C) |
|---|---|
| Legal systems | Economic policy |
| Fair processes/rules | Fair market rules |
| Perfect individual outcomes | Specific income distributions |
| Requires omniscience | Requires complete control of all factors |
Perfect Structural Match: Just as Sowell argues legal systems should focus on fair procedures (achievable) rather than perfect individual outcomes (requiring impossible omniscience), this answer argues economic policy should focus on fair rules (achievable) rather than engineered distributions for all (requiring impossible comprehensive control). The principle transfers perfectly.
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(A) - Misapplies the Principle:
This says ignore context entirely, but Sowell's principle isn't about ignoring context—it's about focusing on what's achievable. A teacher CAN consider backgrounds in achievable ways; Sowell's point is about not pursuing what requires impossible comprehensive knowledge.
(B) - Contradicts the Principle:
"Equal outcomes regardless of cost" is precisely the kind of comprehensive outcome-engineering that Sowell argues against. This is pursuing cosmic justice in healthcare—the opposite of his principle.
(D) - Too Extreme:
"Solely" and "without considering any contextual factors" goes too far. Sowell's principle is about not pursuing comprehensive outcome-perfection requiring impossible knowledge, not about ignoring all context. Achievable consideration of some context is fine.
(E) - Misses the Core Principle:
This focuses on consistency/uniformity, but Sowell's principle isn't primarily about uniformity—it's about matching goals to capabilities. "Identical sentences" doesn't capture the achievability-focus that's central to his reasoning.
Example 3: Illustrative Example Question
Question:
"Sowell's discussion of how traditional justice evaluates a defendant who receives a fair trial primarily serves to illustrate which principle?"
Answer Choices:
(A) Procedural rules guarantee just outcomes in legal proceedings
(B) ✓ CORRECT: Justice can be achieved through fair processes without requiring comprehensive knowledge of all circumstances
(C) Legal systems should treat all defendants identically regardless of individual differences
(D) The outcomes of trials are less important than the methods used to reach them
(E) Judges should focus on evidence presented rather than investigating defendants' backgrounds
Detailed Analysis:
Why (B) is Correct:
From Example to Principle:
The Specific Example:
Sowell states: "A defendant has received justice if the trial was conducted under fair rules with an impartial judge and jury"—regardless of whether all life circumstances were comprehensively considered.
What This Example Demonstrates:
The example illustrates that you can achieve justice through procedural fairness (fair rules, impartial judge/jury) WITHOUT needing to know comprehensively all circumstances about the defendant's life, background, motivations, etc. This exemplifies the broader principle that institutions can function justly without cosmic-level comprehensive knowledge.
Why This is the Principle Being Illustrated: Sowell uses this example specifically to show that traditional justice works—it achieves a legitimate form of justice without requiring the comprehensive knowledge cosmic justice demands. The example demonstrates that process-based justice is a viable alternative precisely because it doesn't require impossible omniscience.
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(A) - Too Strong:
"Guarantee" is too strong. Sowell doesn't claim procedural rules guarantee just outcomes—in fact, Passage A notes "many times it seems obvious that traditional justice has not been done." His point is about what constitutes justice (fair process), not about guaranteeing perfect outcomes.
(C) - Misses the Point:
The example isn't about treating defendants "identically"—it's about judging justice by process rather than comprehensive circumstance knowledge. Individual differences in cases are fine; the point is that justice doesn't require knowing everything about every difference.
(D) - Wrong Emphasis:
Sowell doesn't argue outcomes are "less important"—he argues that perfect-outcome-achievement is impossible, so we focus on achievable process-fairness instead. This makes it sound like outcomes don't matter, which isn't his point.
(E) - Too Narrow and Specific:
This focuses on one specific procedural detail (evidence vs. background investigation) rather than the broader principle about achieving justice through fair processes without comprehensive knowledge. Too narrow to be the main principle illustrated.
7 Common Mistakes on Principle Questions
❌ Mistake #1: Confusing Principles with Conclusions
Selecting the author's specific conclusion rather than the general principle underlying it.
Example:
Wrong: "Legal systems should use traditional justice" (specific conclusion)
Right: "Institutions should pursue achievable goals" (general principle)
❌ Mistake #2: Overgeneralizing (Too Broad)
Abstracting so much that the principle becomes meaningless or applies to everything.
Example:
Too broad: "People should be realistic" ← So general it's almost meaningless
Just right: "Institutions should design practices around achievable capabilities"
❌ Mistake #3: Undergeneralizing (Too Narrow)
Staying too close to the specific case without abstracting to a general rule.
Example:
Too narrow: "American courts should avoid cosmic justice" ← Only applies to one specific system
Just right: "Institutions should avoid goals requiring impossible capabilities"
❌ Mistake #4: Adding Unsupported Elements
Including components in the principle that aren't actually part of the author's reasoning.
Example:
"Institutions should prioritize efficiency over comprehensiveness" ← Sowell never discusses efficiency; this adds an unsupported element
❌ Mistake #5: Wrong Type of Principle
Choosing a principle that relates to the topic but doesn't actually drive the author's reasoning.
Example:
"Justice systems should treat similar cases similarly" ← A principle about justice, but not the one driving Sowell's argument about cosmic vs. traditional justice
❌ Mistake #6: Reversing the Principle
Stating the opposite of what the principle actually says.
Example:
Wrong: "Theoretical ideals should guide all institutional design" ← This reverses Sowell's position
Right: "Institutions should design around achievable goals rather than theoretical ideals requiring impossible capabilities"
❌ Mistake #7: Mistaking Application for Principle
On application questions, choosing a case that involves similar topics but doesn't actually exemplify the same principle.
Example:
If principle is "match goals to capabilities," wrong answer might discuss justice topics but not capability-matching (e.g., "Courts should explain their decisions clearly")—related topic, wrong principle
4-Week Practice Strategy for Principle Questions
Week 1: Foundation Building
- Days 1-2: Read 10 LSAT passages (untimed), identify every principle explicitly stated. Practice distinguishing principles from conclusions
- Days 3-4: Practice abstraction ladder—take 20 specific arguments, abstract them to Level 3 and Level 4 principles
- Days 5-6: Complete 30 principle questions (untimed), write out complete abstraction process for each correct answer
- Day 7: Review all errors, categorize by mistake type (too narrow, too broad, confused with conclusion, etc.)
Week 2: Recognition & Extraction
- Days 8-10: Focus on "identify underlying principle" questions—complete 40 questions, verify each principle explains multiple argument components
- Days 11-12: Practice with law passages specifically (similar to Cosmic Justice)—extract principles from philosophical/legal arguments
- Days 13-14: Complete 3 full RC sections, track principle question accuracy separately (target 80%+ accuracy)
Week 3: Application Mastery
- Days 15-17: Focus on "apply principle to new case" questions—practice identifying structural analogies, not just topical similarities
- Days 18-19: Practice "illustrative example" questions—move from concrete examples to abstract lessons efficiently
- Days 20-21: Complete 50 principle application questions, map structural analogies for all correct answers
Week 4: Integration & Speed
- Days 22-24: Complete 5 full RC sections under strict timing—aim to identify principles within 20 seconds
- Days 25-26: Review all principle errors from timed sections; identify if errors cluster around specific mistake types
- Days 27-28: Final practice with most recent PrepTests—target 85%+ accuracy on principle questions under timed conditions
Success Metrics (End of 4 Weeks)
- Identify underlying principles in passages within 30 seconds
- Score 90%+ on untimed principle questions
- Score 85%+ on timed principle questions
- Distinguish principles from conclusions with 100% accuracy
- Correctly calibrate abstraction level (avoid too broad/too narrow)
- Successfully apply principles to analogous scenarios (structural matching)
- Extract principles that unify multiple parts of arguments
Mathematical Framework for Principle Extraction
The Principle Extraction Formula
Given an argument structure:
Premises: \( P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_n \)
Conclusion: \( C \)
Principle \( \Pi \): The general rule where \( P_1 \land P_2 \land \ldots \land P_n \land \Pi \Rightarrow C \)
Abstraction Process:
For each specific term \( s_i \) in the argument, replace with general category \( g_i \):
\( \Pi = f(g_1, g_2, \ldots, g_k) \) where \( g_i = \text{generalize}(s_i) \)
Concrete Application:
Specific Argument (Cosmic Justice):
\( P_1 \): Cosmic justice requires omniscience
\( P_2 \): Legal systems lack omniscience
\( C \): Legal systems should not pursue cosmic justice
Abstraction Mapping:
"Legal systems" → \( g_1 \) = Institutions
"Cosmic justice" → \( g_2 \) = Goals requiring X
"Omniscience" → \( g_3 \) = Impossible capabilities
"Should not pursue" → \( g_4 \) = Should not pursue
Resulting Principle \( \Pi \):
"Institutions should not pursue goals that require impossible capabilities"
Official LSAT Preparation Resources
LSAC Official PrepTests & Materials
The Law School Admission Council provides authentic past LSAT exams and study materials:
- 90+ Official PrepTests — Every released LSAT from the past 30+ years with authentic principle questions
- The Official LSAT SuperPrep Series — Includes comprehensive explanations for principle question reasoning
- Reading Comprehension Official Guide — Strategies specific to extracting and applying principles
- 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests Series — Collections of 10 real exams in each volume
- LSAT PrepTest explanations — Detailed breakdowns of principle abstraction processes
LawHub (Official Digital LSAT Platform)
LawHub is LSAC's official digital platform for LSAT preparation:
- Digital LSAT Interface — Practice with the exact interface used on test day
- 70+ Official PrepTests — Access decades of authentic LSAT principle questions digitally
- Question Filtering — Isolate principle questions for focused practice
- Performance Analytics — Track accuracy by question type and identify weak areas
- Timed Practice Modes — Simulate real test conditions with countdown timers
Essential Takeaways: Mastering Principle Questions
- Principles are general rules, not specific conclusions: They operate at a higher level of abstraction than the particular claims made in passages—they're the foundational guidelines that generate those specific conclusions
- Navigate the abstraction ladder carefully: Principles should be general enough to apply beyond the specific case but not so broad they become meaningless—aim for Level 3 (domain principles) or Level 4 (universal principles)
- Distinguish principles from conclusions: "Legal systems should use traditional justice" is a conclusion; "Institutions should pursue achievable goals" is the principle underlying that conclusion
- Principles unify arguments: A correctly identified principle should explain multiple components of the author's reasoning, not just one isolated claim—test whether it connects premises to conclusions throughout
- Master the abstraction process: Replace specific terms with general categories systematically—"legal systems" becomes "institutions," "cosmic justice" becomes "goals requiring impossible capabilities"
- Apply principles through structural analogy: For application questions, look for scenarios with the same underlying structure, not just similar topics—match the logical relationships, not the subject matter
- Recognize three question types: Identify underlying principle (extract from argument), apply to new case (find structural analogy), illustrative example (determine what the example demonstrates)
- Avoid the seven common mistakes: Don't confuse principles with conclusions, overgeneralize, undergeneralize, add unsupported elements, choose wrong principle types, reverse the principle, or mistake topical similarity for structural analogy
- Principles bridge premises and conclusions: They're the implicit rules that make arguments work—the general guidelines that justify moving from specific facts to specific conclusions
- Practice with official materials exclusively: Khan Academy and LSAC PrepTests contain authentic principle questions with the precise philosophical sophistication you'll encounter on test day
Quick Reference: Principle Question Checklist
Before Selecting Your Answer, Verify:
✓ Is it general enough to apply beyond the specific case?
✓ Is it specific enough to be meaningful (not overgeneralized)?
✓ Does it explain multiple components of the author's reasoning?
✓ Is it a foundational rule rather than a specific conclusion?
✓ Does it bridge the gap between premises and conclusion?
✓ Have I verified it contains no unsupported elements?
✓ For applications: Does it match structurally, not just topically?
Red Flags — Eliminate If Answer:
❌ States the specific conclusion
❌ Is too broad (meaningless)
❌ Is too narrow (only this case)
❌ Adds concepts not in passage
❌ Reverses author's position
❌ Explains only one small part
Master LSAT Principle Questions Today
Transform your LSAT Reading Comprehension score by mastering the art of principle extraction and application. Develop the philosophical reasoning skills essential for law school success and legal practice by learning to identify the general rules underlying complex arguments.