LSAT Prep

Evaluate the Argument Questions LSAT | Helpful to Know Strategy Guide

3 days ago
17 mins
10 Views
Master LSAT Evaluate the Argument questions with the Variance Test, assumption identification techniques, and expert strategies. Complete guide to "most useful to know" questions for LSAT success.

Evaluate the Argument Questions (Helpful to Know): Complete LSAT Strategy Guide

Evaluate the Argument questions—also known as "Helpful to Know" or "Most Useful to Know" questions—are rare but strategically important in LSAT Logical Reasoning, appearing only 1-2 times per test (approximately 1.4% of all LR questions). These unique questions test your ability to identify what additional information would be most valuable in assessing an argument's strength—essentially asking you to pinpoint the critical piece of information that, depending on its answer, could either strengthen or weaken the conclusion. Mastering these questions demonstrates sophisticated analytical thinking and a deep understanding of argument structure, giving you an edge on test day and preparing you for the type of critical evaluation you'll perform throughout law school and legal practice.

What Are Evaluate the Argument Questions?

An Evaluate the Argument question asks you to determine what additional information would be most useful or helpful in assessing whether an argument's conclusion is well-supported. Unlike strengthen questions (which add support) or weaken questions (which undermine), evaluate questions ask you to identify what you would need to KNOW to properly judge the argument's quality.

Core Definition: Evaluate questions ask you to identify information that is bidirectionally relevant—meaning the answer should have the potential to either strengthen OR weaken the argument depending on how that question is answered. Think of it as identifying the "make or break" information: the critical fact that would definitively help you decide whether the argument is convincing or not. The correct answer addresses the argument's central assumption or logical gap.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) designs these questions to test your ability to identify the most important unstated assumptions in arguments and recognize what additional evidence would be pivotal in evaluating those arguments—skills essential for legal analysis, discovery processes, and case evaluation in legal practice.

Recognizing Evaluate Questions

Identifying evaluate questions is straightforward—they use distinctive phrasing that explicitly asks about what would be useful or helpful to know. Look for these key phrases:

  • "Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?"
  • "Which one of the following would it be most helpful to know in evaluating the argument?"
  • "The answer to which one of the following questions would be most useful in determining whether the conclusion is justified?"
  • "Which one of the following would be most important to determine in order to evaluate the argument?"
  • "In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?"
  • "Knowledge of which of the following would be most useful in evaluating the conclusion drawn?"

The key indicators are "useful to know," "helpful," "most important to determine," combined with "evaluate," "evaluating," or "in order to assess." These phrases signal that you need to find information that would help you judge the argument's quality.

Evaluate Questions vs. Other Question Types

Understanding how evaluate questions differ from similar question types ensures you apply the correct analytical approach.

AspectEvaluate QuestionStrengthen QuestionWeaken QuestionAssumption Question
What It AsksWhat would be USEFUL TO KNOW to judge the argument?What makes the conclusion MORE LIKELY?What makes the conclusion LESS LIKELY?What does the argument ASSUME?
Answer DirectionBIDIRECTIONAL—can strengthen OR weakenUNIDIRECTIONAL—only strengthensUNIDIRECTIONAL—only weakensSTATED AS FACT—fills gap
Key Phrase"useful to know," "helpful to evaluate""strengthens," "supports""weakens," "undermines""assumes," "depends on"
Answer FormatOften phrased as a QUESTION ("whether X is true")Stated as FACT ("X is true")Stated as FACT ("Y is true")Stated as FACT ("Z must be true")
Test MethodVARIANCE TEST—apply opposite answersAsk: "Does this support the conclusion?"Ask: "Does this undermine the conclusion?"NEGATION TEST—does negating destroy argument?
What It TargetsThe central ASSUMPTION or logical GAPAny vulnerability that can be improvedAny vulnerability that can be exploitedThe necessary link between premises and conclusion
Critical Distinction: Evaluate questions sit "between" strengthen and weaken questions. The correct answer to an evaluate question should be information that, depending on how it's answered, could go either way. If answer choice X would only strengthen (or only weaken) regardless of how it's answered, it's probably wrong. The bidirectional nature is what makes evaluate questions unique and requires a special test: the Variance Test.

The Variance Test: Your Essential Tool

The Variance Test is the specialized technique for evaluating answer choices in Evaluate the Argument questions. It's your most powerful tool for distinguishing correct from incorrect answers.

How the Variance Test Works

The Variance Test requires you to supply polar opposite answers to each answer choice and observe the effect on the argument's conclusion.

Variance Test Formula:

If Answer = YES → Strengthens Conclusion

AND

If Answer = NO → Weakens Conclusion

THEN: This answer is RELEVANT to evaluating the argument ✓

Step-by-Step Variance Test Process:

  1. Take the answer choice (usually phrased as "whether X" or a question)
  2. Supply the "YES" answer: Assume X is true. Does this strengthen the conclusion?
  3. Supply the "NO" answer: Assume X is false. Does this weaken the conclusion?
  4. Evaluate the results: If one polar answer strengthens while the other weakens, you've found relevant information—a strong contender for the correct answer
  5. Compare contenders: The answer with the MOST SIGNIFICANT bidirectional impact is correct

Variance Test Example

Argument: "Sales at our company increased by 30% after we hired a new marketing director. Therefore, the new marketing director's strategies caused the sales increase."

Evaluate Question: "Which would be most useful to know in evaluating the argument?"

Answer Choice to Test: "Whether a major competitor went out of business around the same time the new marketing director was hired."

Applying the Variance Test:

Answer: YES
"A major competitor DID go out of business at that time"

Effect: WEAKENS the conclusion. If a competitor disappeared, that alternative explanation (not the marketing director) could explain the sales increase. The marketing director might not be responsible.
Answer: NO
"No major competitor went out of business at that time"

Effect: STRENGTHENS the conclusion. Without an alternative explanation, it's more likely the marketing director's strategies actually caused the increase.

Verdict: This answer choice exhibits BIDIRECTIONAL VARIANCE. YES weakens, NO strengthens. This information would be highly useful in evaluating whether the marketing director caused the sales increase. This is likely the CORRECT answer. ✓

The Five-Step Strategy for Evaluate Questions

1Confirm the Question Type

Read the question stem carefully and confirm you're dealing with an evaluate question by looking for "useful to know," "helpful," or "important to determine" combined with "evaluate" or "evaluating." This activates your gap-finding mindset—you're looking for the argument's vulnerable assumption.

Mindset: Don't try to strengthen or weaken the argument. Instead, think like a judge or investigator: "What critical information am I missing? What question needs to be answered before I can assess this argument's quality?"

2Identify the Conclusion

Locate the main claim the argument is trying to prove. This is what you're evaluating. Understanding exactly what the argument concludes is essential because the information you need must be directly relevant to THIS specific conclusion, not to peripheral claims or general topics.

Conclusion indicators to look for:

  • "therefore," "thus," "consequently," "hence"
  • "this shows," "it follows that," "we can conclude"
  • "this proves," "this means," "clearly"

3Identify the Premises and Reasoning Type

Map out the evidence provided and identify what type of reasoning connects premises to conclusion. Is this causal reasoning? Analogical? Predictive? Sampling-based? Understanding the reasoning type helps you anticipate the likely assumption and gap.

Common reasoning patterns in evaluate questions:

  • Causal: X caused Y (assumes no alternative causes)
  • Analogical: X is like Y (assumes relevant similarities)
  • Predictive: X will happen (assumes conditions won't change)
  • Sampling: Sample shows X about population (assumes representativeness)

4Identify the Gap or Critical Assumption

This is the MOST IMPORTANT STEP. Ask yourself: "What is this argument assuming? What's the unstated link between premises and conclusion? What could make this reasoning fall apart or become much stronger?" The gap you identify is what you need information about to evaluate the argument.

Questions to ask yourself:

  • "What must be true for this conclusion to follow?"
  • "What alternative explanations might exist?"
  • "What could I learn that would make me more or less confident in this conclusion?"
  • "What is the author taking for granted?"
Pro Tip: The correct answer to an evaluate question almost always addresses the argument's CENTRAL assumption—the main unstated link. Focus on the biggest gap, not peripheral issues. Ask: "If I could only ask ONE question about this argument, what would reveal whether it's strong or weak?"

5Apply the Variance Test to Answer Choices

Evaluate each answer choice using the Variance Test. For competitive answer choices (those that seem relevant), systematically test polar opposite responses and see if one strengthens while the other weakens. The answer with the most significant bidirectional impact on the conclusion is correct.

Variance Test Checklist for Each Answer:

  1. Assume the "YES" or positive version is true—what happens to the conclusion?
  2. Assume the "NO" or negative version is true—what happens to the conclusion?
  3. Do the two polar responses have opposite effects (one strengthen, one weaken)?
  4. Is the impact substantial and directly relevant to the conclusion?
  5. Compare: Which answer has the GREATEST bidirectional impact?

Common Argument Patterns in Evaluate Questions

Pattern 1: Causal Arguments (MOST COMMON)

Structure: X happened, then Y happened, therefore X caused Y.

OR: X and Y correlate, therefore X causes Y.

The Gap/Assumption: No alternative explanation exists for Y; X is the only plausible cause.

What Would Be Useful to Know:

  • "Whether any other significant change occurred at the same time as X" (tests for alternative causes)
  • "Whether Y occurs in the absence of X" (tests if X is necessary)
  • "Whether X occurs without causing Y" (tests if X is sufficient)
  • "Whether Z also changed when X changed" (tests for confounding variables)

Example:

Argument: "After the city installed speed cameras, traffic accidents decreased by 25%. Therefore, the speed cameras caused the reduction in accidents."

Useful to know: "Whether the city also implemented other traffic safety measures around the same time the cameras were installed."

YES (other measures implemented):
WEAKENS—alternative explanation exists for accident reduction
NO (no other measures):
STRENGTHENS—cameras are the likely cause

Pattern 2: Analogical Arguments

Structure: X and Y are similar. X has characteristic Z, therefore Y probably has characteristic Z.

The Gap/Assumption: X and Y are similar in ways RELEVANT to characteristic Z.

What Would Be Useful to Know:

  • "Whether X and Y differ in ways relevant to Z"
  • "Whether the similarities between X and Y extend to factors that affect Z"
  • "Whether conditions that allowed Z in X also exist for Y"

Example:

Argument: "The recycling program succeeded in City A, which has similar population and demographics to City B. Therefore, the same program will succeed in City B."

Useful to know: "Whether City B has the same waste collection infrastructure that City A has."

YES (same infrastructure):
STRENGTHENS—relevant similarity exists
NO (different infrastructure):
WEAKENS—relevant difference undermines analogy

Pattern 3: Predictive Arguments

Structure: Based on past trends or current conditions, X will happen in the future.

The Gap/Assumption: Conditions will remain similar; no significant changes will occur; past patterns will continue.

What Would Be Useful to Know:

  • "Whether conditions affecting the trend will change significantly"
  • "Whether factors that produced past results will remain present"
  • "Whether new circumstances will emerge that could alter the outcome"

Example:

Argument: "Our company's revenue has grown 15% annually for the past five years. Revenue will grow at least 15% next year."

Useful to know: "Whether the market conditions that drove past growth will continue next year."

YES (conditions continuing):
STRENGTHENS—prediction is more reliable
NO (conditions changing):
WEAKENS—past patterns may not hold

Pattern 4: Sampling/Generalization Arguments

Structure: Sample shows characteristic X, therefore the population has characteristic X.

The Gap/Assumption: The sample is representative of the population; no sampling bias exists.

What Would Be Useful to Know:

  • "Whether the sample was randomly selected from the population"
  • "Whether the sample differs from the population in relevant ways"
  • "Whether the sample size was adequate for reliable conclusions"
  • "Whether response bias affected the results"

Example:

Argument: "In a survey of our customers, 90% were satisfied with our service. Therefore, most people in our city are satisfied with our service."

Useful to know: "Whether the surveyed customers are representative of all residents of the city."

YES (representative):
STRENGTHENS—generalization is justified
NO (not representative):
WEAKENS—can't generalize from biased sample

Common Trap Answer Types in Evaluate Questions

Trap 1: The Unidirectional Answer

What it is: An answer that would only strengthen (or only weaken) the argument regardless of how the question is answered. It lacks bidirectional impact.

Why it's wrong: Evaluate questions require bidirectional relevance. If knowing "YES" strengthens but knowing "NO" doesn't really weaken (or has minimal effect), the information isn't truly useful for EVALUATING—it's just supportive information.

How to spot it: Apply the Variance Test rigorously. If one polar response (YES or NO) seems to have much stronger impact than the other, or if both responses lead to the same conclusion about the argument, eliminate the answer.

Example:

Argument: "Students who study with flashcards score higher on tests. Flashcards improve test performance."

Trap answer: "Whether flashcards are affordable for most students."

Why it's wrong: Affordability doesn't affect whether flashcards WORK (cause higher scores). Whether YES or NO, the causal claim isn't impacted. This is about accessibility, not effectiveness.

Trap 2: The Irrelevant Tangent

What it is: An answer that addresses a topic related to the argument's subject matter but doesn't actually impact the CONCLUSION being evaluated.

Why it's tempting: It uses similar terms or discusses the same general area as the argument, creating a false sense of relevance.

How to avoid it: Keep laser focus on the SPECIFIC CONCLUSION. Don't be distracted by topical relevance—demand logical relevance to the conclusion's validity.

Example:

Argument: "Online education increased by 300% last year. Therefore, online education is more effective than traditional education."

Trap answer: "Whether online education will continue to grow next year."

Why it's wrong: Future growth doesn't tell us about EFFECTIVENESS (the conclusion). The argument confuses popularity with effectiveness, but this answer doesn't help evaluate that confusion.

Trap 3: The Peripheral Issue

What it is: An answer that addresses a minor assumption or secondary claim rather than the argument's CENTRAL gap.

Why it's tricky: It might have some bidirectional impact, but it's not the MOST useful information—there's a better answer that addresses the core assumption.

How to avoid it: When you have multiple answers that pass the Variance Test, compare their impact. Which addresses the CENTRAL assumption? Which would be MOST useful (not just somewhat useful)? Choose based on magnitude of impact.

Trap 4: The Premise Questioner

What it is: An answer that questions the truth of a stated premise rather than addressing the connection between premises and conclusion.

Why it's usually wrong: On the LSAT, premises are generally accepted as true. The gap is in the REASONING, not in the facts. Evaluate questions focus on assumptions, not premise verification.

Exception: Occasionally, when a premise involves representativeness or relevance (like sampling), questioning its quality can be legitimate. But direct factual denial of premises is typically wrong.

Example:

Premise: "Sales increased by 30% last quarter."

Conclusion: "Our new advertising campaign caused the increase."

Trap answer: "Whether the 30% sales increase figure is accurate."

Why it's usually wrong: This questions the premise itself. We should accept that sales increased and evaluate whether the ADVERTISING caused it (the inferential leap), not whether the sales data is accurate.

Advanced Techniques for Evaluate Questions

Technique 1: The Assumption-First Approach

Before looking at answer choices, explicitly state the argument's central assumption in your own words: "This argument assumes that [X]." Then predict: "It would be useful to know whether [X] is actually true." This prediction often matches or closely resembles the correct answer.

Example:

Argument: "Countries with higher coffee consumption have lower rates of heart disease. Coffee prevents heart disease."

Assumption identified: "Assumes no alternative explanation exists—that something OTHER than coffee doesn't explain both high coffee consumption and low heart disease."

Prediction: "Useful to know whether another factor (like wealth, healthcare access, diet) explains both variables."

Now find an answer matching this prediction.

Technique 2: The Question Stem Format Recognition

Many correct answers are phrased as questions using "whether" or explicitly ask something. Examples:

  • "Whether X is true"
  • "Whether X and Y are related"
  • "How much Z affects the outcome"

This phrasing naturally invites polar opposite responses (YES/NO to "whether"), making it easier to apply the Variance Test. While not all correct answers use this format, when you see "whether" phrasing, it's a signal to pay close attention and test it carefully.

Technique 3: The Necessary vs. Sufficient Distinction

For causal arguments, useful information often concerns whether the proposed cause is NECESSARY (required) or SUFFICIENT (adequate by itself) for the effect:

  • To test necessity: "Whether the effect occurs WITHOUT the proposed cause" (if YES, cause isn't necessary)
  • To test sufficiency: "Whether the proposed cause occurs WITHOUT the effect" (if YES, cause isn't sufficient)

Both types of information help evaluate causal claims and typically show strong bidirectional variance.

Technique 4: The Comparative Magnitude Test

When you have two or more answers that both pass the Variance Test (both show bidirectional impact), ask:

  • Which addresses the CENTRAL assumption vs. a peripheral one?
  • Which would produce the GREATEST shift in your confidence about the conclusion?
  • Which is more directly connected to the conclusion's key terms?
  • Which, if you could only ask ONE question, would be the most revealing?

The correct answer typically has the most substantial and direct impact on evaluating the conclusion.

Worked Example with Complete Variance Test Analysis

Sample Question

Stimulus: "A recent study found that employees who work from home report higher job satisfaction than office-based employees. The researchers concluded that working from home causes increased job satisfaction."

Question: "Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the researchers' conclusion?"

Step-by-Step Solution

Step 1 - Confirm Question Type: This is an evaluate question—"most useful to know in evaluating." I need to find bidirectional information.

Step 2 - Identify Conclusion: "Working from home CAUSES increased job satisfaction." This is a causal claim.

Step 3 - Identify Premises: "Work-from-home employees report higher satisfaction than office employees." This establishes a correlation.

Step 4 - Identify the Gap/Assumption: This is classic correlation-to-causation reasoning. The argument assumes:

  • No alternative explanation exists for the satisfaction difference
  • The work location CAUSES satisfaction (not the reverse)
  • No confounding variable explains both working from home and high satisfaction

Step 5 - Predict Useful Information: "It would be useful to know whether employees who CHOSE to work from home differ in relevant ways from those required to work in offices. Maybe already-satisfied people self-select into remote work."

Evaluating Answer Choices with Variance Test

(A) "Whether companies that offer remote work have better overall benefits packages than companies that don't."

Variance Test:

YES (better benefits): This suggests an alternative explanation—maybe better benefits (not remote work itself) cause higher satisfaction. WEAKENS causation claim.

NO (similar benefits): No alternative explanation from benefits. STRENGTHENS causation claim.

Verdict: Shows bidirectional variance. Strong contender. Keep. ✓

(B) "Whether remote workers spend more time with their families than office workers."

Variance Test:

YES (more family time): This might explain satisfaction, but it doesn't challenge the causal claim—remote work enables family time, which causes satisfaction. This actually supports the causal chain.

NO (same family time): Doesn't affect the argument much.

Verdict: Weak bidirectional impact. This is more about mechanism than about evaluating the causal claim itself. Weaker than (A). Eliminate for now.

(C) "Whether employees who requested to work from home already had higher job satisfaction before transitioning to remote work."

Variance Test:

YES (already satisfied before): This is REVERSE CAUSATION or self-selection. Satisfaction came FIRST, then they chose remote work. Strongly WEAKENS the claim that remote work caused satisfaction.

NO (not more satisfied before): Remote work correlates with satisfaction increase that happened AFTER the transition. STRENGTHENS the causal claim.

Verdict: Excellent bidirectional variance! This directly addresses whether remote work CAUSED satisfaction or whether already-satisfied people self-selected into remote work. Very strong contender. Keep. ✓✓

(D) "Whether remote work will become more common in the future."

Variance Test:

YES (becoming more common): Doesn't affect whether it CAUSES satisfaction.

NO (not becoming more common): Still doesn't affect the causation claim.

Verdict: NO bidirectional variance. Future trends don't help evaluate whether remote work causes satisfaction NOW. Irrelevant. Eliminate. ✗

(E) "Whether the study included both voluntary and involuntary remote workers."

Variance Test:

YES (included both types): This would strengthen the study's ability to isolate remote work as the cause—if even involuntary remote workers report higher satisfaction, choice/self-selection is less of a concern. STRENGTHENS.

NO (only voluntary): Suggests self-selection bias—people chose remote work, possibly because they already valued it or were already satisfied. WEAKENS.

Verdict: Shows bidirectional variance. Also addresses self-selection. Contender. Keep. ✓

Comparing Final Contenders: (A), (C), and (E)

Answer (A): Better benefits could be an alternative cause. Relevant, but somewhat indirect—we'd need to establish that benefits affect satisfaction AND that remote-work companies have better benefits. Two steps removed.

Answer (C): Directly addresses temporal sequence and causation direction. If people were already satisfied BEFORE working from home, the causal arrow is reversed. This is central to the causal claim and directly challenges it. One step, very direct.

Answer (E): Addresses self-selection by asking if involuntary remote workers exist in the sample. Relevant but focuses on study methodology rather than the core causal question.

Correct Answer: (C)

Why it's correct: Answer (C) most directly addresses the central causal assumption by testing temporal sequence—did satisfaction come before or after remote work? This is THE critical question for evaluating causation. If employees were already satisfied before transitioning to remote work, the argument that remote work CAUSED their satisfaction completely falls apart. Conversely, if they became satisfied only AFTER transitioning, the causal claim is strengthened. This information has the most substantial, direct impact on evaluating the researchers' conclusion.

Practice Strategy for Evaluate Questions

Because evaluate questions are rare (only 1-2 per test), targeted practice is essential:

  1. Master Assumption Questions First: Evaluate questions essentially ask "What assumption would be most useful to test?" Therefore, strong skill in identifying assumptions is foundational. Practice assumption questions extensively before focusing on evaluate questions.
  2. Collect and Drill Evaluate Questions: Since they're rare, create a dedicated set of evaluate questions from official PrepTests. Aim for 20-30 questions for focused practice. Resources like the PowerScore question type training can help you find these quickly.
  3. Perfect the Variance Test: For every evaluate question you practice, FORMALLY apply the Variance Test to ALL five answers, even the obviously wrong ones. Write out YES and NO scenarios and their effects. This drill internalizes the testing process until it becomes automatic.
  4. Compare with Strengthen/Weaken: Take an evaluate question and its correct answer. Then ask: "If I simply stated the YES version of this as fact, would it strengthen the argument? If I stated the NO version as fact, would it weaken it?" This helps you see the relationship between evaluate questions and strengthen/weaken questions.
  5. Study Incorrect Answer Patterns: Track why wrong answers fail. Do they lack bidirectional impact? Are they out of scope? Do they address peripheral issues? Understanding trap patterns accelerates your elimination process.
  6. Time Management: Evaluate questions often take 1 minute 45 seconds to 2 minutes 15 seconds because you must apply the Variance Test to multiple contenders. Don't rush—these questions reward systematic analysis. Budget appropriately.
  7. Prediction Practice: Before looking at answer choices, spend 15-20 seconds predicting: "If I could ask ONE question to evaluate this argument, what would it be?" Write it down. This strengthens your assumption-identification skills and often leads directly to the correct answer.

Why Evaluate Questions Matter

Despite their rarity, evaluate questions are strategically important for several reasons:

1. Disproportionate Practice Value: Mastering evaluate questions deepens your understanding of assumptions, strengthen/weaken logic, and argument evaluation—skills that transfer to far more common question types. The Variance Test thinking improves your analysis of strengthen and weaken questions.

2. High Accuracy Potential: Because evaluate questions have a systematic solution method (the Variance Test), test-takers who master the technique achieve very high accuracy rates. These can be reliable "free points."

3. Real-World Legal Relevance: The skill of identifying what information would be most useful in evaluating an argument mirrors discovery planning, case evaluation, and identifying what additional evidence would strengthen or undermine a legal position—core competencies for attorneys.

4. Diagnostic Value: Performance on evaluate questions is often a litmus test for true understanding of argument structure. If you struggle with evaluate questions, it usually indicates gaps in your understanding of assumptions and reasoning patterns that will also affect your performance on other question types.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do all correct answers to evaluate questions have to show equal impact in both directions (strengthen and weaken)?
No, the bidirectional impact doesn't have to be perfectly symmetrical. What matters is that answering the question one way (YES) has a different effect on the argument than answering it the opposite way (NO), and that both effects are meaningful. Typically, one direction will strengthen while the other weakens, but the magnitude of strengthening vs. weakening doesn't have to be identical. What's essential is that the information is relevant BOTH WAYS, not just unidirectional.
How is an evaluate question different from a necessary assumption question?
Necessary assumption questions ask what the argument MUST assume to work—these are stated as facts ("The argument assumes X"). Evaluate questions ask what you would need to KNOW to judge the argument—these are often phrased as questions ("Whether X is true"). Additionally, necessary assumptions, when negated, destroy the argument. Evaluate answers, when answered one way, strengthen; when answered the opposite way, weaken. The format and function are different, though both involve identifying gaps in reasoning.
Can an answer that only strengthens (but never weakens) be correct for an evaluate question?
No. If an answer only strengthens regardless of how it's answered (YES or NO), it's not truly useful for EVALUATING—it's just supportive information. True evaluation requires being able to discriminate: "If the answer is X, the argument is strong; if the answer is NOT-X, the argument is weak." Unidirectional answers fail the Variance Test and should be eliminated. Look for bidirectional relevance.
Should I spend time on the Variance Test for obviously wrong answers?
During practice, YES—test all five answers to build pattern recognition. During the actual test, NO—use your initial relevance screening to eliminate obvious out-of-scope answers quickly, then apply the Variance Test only to the 2-3 remaining contenders. The Variance Test is most useful as a tiebreaker between plausible options, not as a universal first-pass tool for all five answers.
What if two answers both pass the Variance Test?
When multiple answers show bidirectional variance, compare their impact using these criteria: (1) Which addresses the CENTRAL assumption vs. a peripheral issue? (2) Which is more DIRECTLY relevant to the conclusion? (3) Which would produce the GREATEST shift in your confidence about the conclusion? (4) Which addresses causation, mechanism, or other core reasoning issues vs. tangential concerns? The correct answer typically has the most substantial, direct, and central impact on evaluating the argument's main conclusion.
Are evaluate questions getting more or less common on recent LSATs?
Evaluate the Argument questions remain consistently rare, appearing 1-2 times per test (approximately 1-2 questions across the two scored Logical Reasoning sections, or about 1.4% of all LR questions). This frequency has remained relatively stable over time. While rare, they appear frequently enough that you should be prepared to encounter them on test day. Because they're predictable in structure and methodology, they can be reliable points when you've mastered the technique.
What's the relationship between evaluate questions and strengthen/weaken questions?
Evaluate questions sit conceptually "between" strengthen and weaken questions. A correct evaluate answer is information that COULD strengthen OR weaken depending on how it's answered. Think of it this way: if you took an evaluate question's correct answer and stated the "YES" version as fact, it would be a correct strengthen answer; if you stated the "NO" version as fact, it would be a correct weaken answer. Understanding strengthen and weaken questions deeply is therefore foundational to mastering evaluate questions.
Can premises be questioned in evaluate questions, or only the reasoning?
Generally, focus on the REASONING (the connection between premises and conclusion) rather than questioning whether premises are factually true. The LSAT typically asks you to accept stated premises as given and evaluate whether the conclusion follows. However, there's a nuanced exception: if a premise involves sampling, representativeness, or relevance, questioning its QUALITY (not its truth) can be legitimate. For example, "Whether the survey sample was randomly selected" questions the premise's quality/relevance, which is appropriate. But "Whether the stated facts are accurate" usually isn't the focus.
How much time should I spend on an evaluate question?
Evaluate questions typically require 1 minute 45 seconds to 2 minutes 15 seconds under test conditions. They take longer than average because you need to: (1) identify the argument's assumption, (2) apply the Variance Test to multiple contenders, and (3) compare the magnitude of bidirectional impact. Don't rush these questions—they reward systematic analysis. However, if you're exceeding 2 minutes 30 seconds, you may be overthinking. Make your best judgment, flag if needed, and move forward to maintain overall section pacing.

Official LSAT Resources

Maximize your LSAT preparation with these official resources from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC):

LSAC Official Logical Reasoning Overview LSAC Official Sample Questions LSAC LawHub Prep Platform Official LSAT PrepTests LSAT Test Dates and Registration

Mastering Evaluate Questions: The Key to Deep Understanding

Evaluate the Argument questions may be rare, but they're among the most intellectually satisfying question types on the LSAT because they test genuine analytical sophistication. By asking you to identify what information would be most useful in assessing an argument, these questions push you beyond passive comprehension to active critical evaluation—the essence of legal reasoning. The Variance Test gives you a systematic, reliable method for solving these questions with high accuracy. More importantly, the skills you develop in identifying central assumptions, predicting bidirectional impact, and comparing magnitude of relevance transfer directly to strengthen, weaken, and assumption questions—the most common question types on the test. Practice evaluate questions not just to master this rare type, but to deepen your overall understanding of argument analysis. When you can confidently identify what would be most useful to know in evaluating any argument, you've achieved a level of analytical maturity that will serve you throughout your LSAT preparation, in law school, and in legal practice. Every evaluate question is an opportunity to sharpen your evaluative thinking—embrace the challenge!

Shares: