LSAT Analogy Questions: Cosmic Justice Law Passage
Master Structural Reasoning with Analogical Mapping, Worked Examples & Expert Analysis
Understanding LSAT Analogy Questions
Analogy questions represent one of the most sophisticated reasoning tasks in LSAT Reading Comprehension. While other question types ask you to understand what a passage says or what follows from it, analogy questions ask you to recognize identical reasoning structures in completely different contexts. This is the essence of legal reasoning—applying established principles and patterns to novel situations.
When Sowell argues that legal systems should pursue traditional justice rather than cosmic justice because cosmic justice requires impossible omniscience, the structure of this reasoning can apply far beyond legal contexts. Any situation involving an institution, an ideal goal, an impossible requirement, and an achievable alternative shares this structure—whether we're discussing healthcare, education, economic policy, or environmental regulation.
The Cosmic Justice paired passages provide an excellent framework for mastering analogy questions because Sowell's argument has a clear, transferable structure: capability-constrained institutional design. Learning to recognize this structure in different surface contexts is the key to analogy mastery.
The Nature of LSAT Analogies
Definition and Core Concept
An LSAT analogy is:
- Structurally identical: Same logical relationships between components
- Content-independent: Can involve completely different subject matter
- Relationship-preserving: If A causes B in passage, corresponding elements must have causal relationship in analogy
- Complexity-matching: Same number of key elements in same configuration
- Reasoning-parallel: Same type of argument or justification pattern
Mathematical Representation:
If we represent a passage case as a structure \( S_P = (E_1, E_2, E_3, R_{12}, R_{23}) \) where \( E_i \) are elements and \( R_{ij} \) are relationships, then an analogous case \( S_A \) must satisfy:
\( S_A = (E'_1, E'_2, E'_3, R_{12}, R_{23}) \)
Same relationships \( R \), different elements \( E' \)
Example from Cosmic Justice:
Passage Structure:
Legal systems (agent) should pursue traditional justice (achievable goal) rather than cosmic justice (ideal goal) because cosmic justice requires omniscience (impossible capability)
Valid Analogy:
Healthcare systems (agent) should pursue accessible treatment (achievable goal) rather than perfect health for all (ideal goal) because perfect health requires controlling all factors (impossible capability)
Why this is analogous:
Same structure: Institution → Achievable alternative preferred over ideal goal → Ideal requires impossible comprehensive control. Every element maps precisely, every relationship is preserved.
Structure vs. Surface Similarity
The most critical distinction for LSAT analogies is understanding the difference between structural similarity (required) and surface similarity (irrelevant):
Cosmic Justice Passage: Structure vs. Surface
❌ Surface Similarity (Wrong):
"A criminal court deciding whether to convict a defendant based on procedural fairness"
Why Wrong: Same topic (legal justice) but different structure—this is about applying justice, not about choosing between ideal and achievable forms of justice. Surface similarity without structural match.
✓ Structural Similarity (Right):
"An education system designing curricula around what students can actually learn rather than attempting to teach comprehensive mastery of all subjects"
Why Right: Different topic (education, not justice) but same structure—institution choosing achievable goal over comprehensive ideal due to capability constraints. Perfect structural match.
The Golden Rule of LSAT Analogies
"Ignore what the elements ARE. Focus on how the elements RELATE."
Structural Components in Cosmic Justice
Mapping the Core Structure
To find valid analogies, you must first understand the passage's structural components and their relationships:
Component 1: The Agent
In Passage:
Legal systems / Institutions pursuing justice
Structural Role:
Decision-making entity with limited capabilities attempting to achieve goals
Component 2: The Ideal Goal
In Passage:
Cosmic justice (perfect comprehensive outcomes)
Structural Role:
Theoretically optimal outcome that would be ideal if achievable
Component 3: The Impossible Requirement
In Passage:
Omniscience (complete knowledge of all relevant factors)
Structural Role:
Capability that the ideal goal requires but the agent cannot possess
Component 4: The Achievable Alternative
In Passage:
Traditional justice (fair procedural processes)
Structural Role:
Feasible goal that the agent can actually pursue given its capabilities
Component 5: The Reasoning
In Passage:
"Should pursue achievable rather than impossible"
Structural Role:
Practical constraint-based reasoning that justifies choosing alternative over ideal
Complete Structural Formula:
Agent with limited capabilities must choose between:
Goal A (ideal but requires impossible capability X)
Goal B (less comprehensive but achievable with actual capabilities)
→ Agent should pursue Goal B (achievability constraint)
The 6-Step Mapping Process
Step 1: Abstract the Passage Structure
Convert the specific passage case into an abstract structural template by replacing concrete elements with variables.
Abstraction Template:
Specific Passage Statement:
"Legal systems should pursue traditional justice (fair processes) rather than cosmic justice (perfect outcomes) because cosmic justice requires omniscience humans lack"
Abstract Structural Template:
Agent: \( A \) = Institution with capability limitations
Goal 1: \( G_1 \) = Comprehensive ideal outcome
Goal 2: \( G_2 \) = Procedural/achievable approach
Requirement: \( R \) = Impossible capability for \( G_1 \)
Conclusion: \( A \) should pursue \( G_2 \) not \( G_1 \) because \( A \) lacks \( R \)
Step 2: Identify Candidate Elements
For each answer choice, identify which concrete element could potentially map to which structural variable.
Mapping Example:
Answer Choice:
"An environmental policy should focus on reducing specific pollutants through enforceable regulations rather than attempting to restore ecosystems to pristine conditions"
Element Identification:
\( A \) = Environmental policy (institution)
\( G_1 \) = Pristine ecosystem restoration (ideal comprehensive outcome)
\( G_2 \) = Reducing specific pollutants (achievable focused approach)
\( R \) = Complete control of all ecosystem variables (impossible capability)
Structure = Choose \( G_2 \) over \( G_1 \) due to capability constraints
Step 3: Verify One-to-One Correspondence
Ensure every structural variable has exactly one corresponding element in the answer, and vice versa.
Correspondence Check:
✓ Valid Mapping (Complete):
| Passage Variable | → | Answer Element |
| Legal systems | → | Environmental policy |
| Cosmic justice | → | Pristine restoration |
| Traditional justice | → | Reduce pollutants |
| Omniscience | → | Control all variables |
Every passage element has a corresponding answer element ✓
❌ Invalid Mapping (Incomplete):
"Environmental policy should reduce pollution" ← Missing correspondence for traditional justice alternative, omniscience requirement, and reasoning about capability constraints. Incomplete structure.
Step 4: Check Relationship Preservation
Verify that the relationships between elements are identical, not just that elements exist.
Relationship Types to Preserve:
Causal Relationship:
If "X requires Y" in passage → Must be "X' requires Y'" in answer
Constraint Relationship:
If "X prevents Y" in passage → Must be "X' prevents Y'" in answer
Preference Relationship:
If "Choose X over Y because Z" in passage → Must be same pattern in answer
Impossibility Relationship:
If "Cannot achieve X" in passage → Must be "Cannot achieve X'" in answer
Step 5: Verify Structural Completeness
Ensure the answer includes all the structural complexity of the passage case—same number of key elements, same configuration.
Completeness Checklist:
For Cosmic Justice Structure, Answer Must Include:
- ✓ An agent/institution making decisions
- ✓ An ideal but unachievable goal
- ✓ An achievable alternative goal
- ✓ A capability requirement the agent lacks
- ✓ Reasoning from capability limitation to goal choice
Missing even one element = Incomplete structure = Wrong answer
Step 6: Eliminate False Analogies
Systematically eliminate answers that fail on structure, completeness, or relationship preservation.
Three Fatal Flaws:
Flaw #1: Surface Similarity Only
Same topic/subject area but different logical structure. "A court deciding a case fairly" has surface similarity (justice topic) but wrong structure (applying justice, not choosing between types).
Flaw #2: Incomplete Mapping
Missing key structural elements. "An institution should be practical" captures the practicality theme but lacks the ideal goal, impossible requirement, and achievable alternative—too simple.
Flaw #3: Relationship Distortion
Elements map but relationships change. If passage has "requires impossible capability," answer can't have "benefits from additional capability"—changes impossibility to mere advantage.
Worked Examples: Analogy Questions
Example 1: Complete Structural Match
Question:
"The relationship between cosmic justice and traditional justice described in the passages is most analogous to which of the following?"
Answer Choices:
(A) The relationship between theoretical physics and applied engineering in technology development
(B) ✓ CORRECT: The relationship between achieving perfect health outcomes for all patients and providing accessible evidence-based treatment within available resources
(C) The relationship between strict adherence to rules and flexible case-by-case judgment
(D) The relationship between ideal educational outcomes and standardized testing requirements
(E) The relationship between comprehensive reform and incremental policy changes
Detailed Analysis:
Why (B) is Correct:
Complete Structural Mapping:
| Cosmic Justice Structure | → | Healthcare Structure (Answer B) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal systems | → | Healthcare systems |
| Cosmic justice (perfect outcomes) | → | Perfect health for all patients |
| Traditional justice (fair processes) | → | Accessible evidence-based treatment |
| Requires omniscience | → | Requires perfect control of all health factors |
| Achievable within capabilities | → | Within available resources |
Perfect 1:1 correspondence with all structural elements preserved ✓
Why This is a Perfect Analogy: The structure is identical: Institution faces choice between comprehensive ideal (cosmic justice / perfect health) requiring impossible capability (omniscience / control all factors) and achievable alternative (traditional justice / evidence-based treatment) within actual capabilities. Every relationship preserved, complete mapping, identical reasoning pattern.
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(A) - Different Structure:
Theoretical physics vs. applied engineering is about abstract vs. practical, but lacks the impossible-requirement structure. There's no suggestion that theoretical physics requires impossible capabilities—it's just more abstract. Different logical structure.
(C) - Wrong Relationship:
Rules vs. flexibility is about rigidity vs. discretion, not about ideal-requiring-impossible vs. achievable-alternative. The passage doesn't characterize traditional justice as "flexible"—it's still rule-based. Relationship mismatch.
(D) - Incomplete Structure:
Missing the impossible-requirement element and the reasoning from capability constraints. Also reverses the structure—standardized testing is the procedural approach (like traditional justice), but this answer doesn't present it as the preferred alternative.
(E) - Surface Similarity Only:
Comprehensive vs. incremental has surface appeal (comprehensive/cosmic sound similar) but wrong structure. The passage isn't about reform pace or scope—it's about impossible requirements making ideal goals unachievable. Topic similarity without structural match.
Example 2: Eliminating False Analogies
Question:
"Sowell's argument that legal systems should pursue traditional rather than cosmic justice is most analogous to which of the following?"
Answer Choices:
(A) A judge ruling on the admissible evidence in a criminal trial
(B) A company prioritizing profitability over social responsibility
(C) ✓ CORRECT: An education system focusing on teaching critical thinking skills rather than attempting to provide comprehensive knowledge of all subjects to every student
(D) A government choosing gradual policy implementation over immediate comprehensive reform
(E) An environmental organization advocating for sustainable practices instead of industrial development
Detailed Analysis:
Why (C) is Correct:
Structural Analysis:
Passage Structure: Legal systems should pursue achievable procedural approach (traditional justice) rather than comprehensive perfect outcomes (cosmic justice) because comprehensive perfection requires impossible knowledge (omniscience)
Answer (C) Structure: Education systems should pursue achievable skill-based approach (critical thinking) rather than comprehensive perfect knowledge (all subjects) because comprehensive knowledge requires impossible transmission capacity
Perfect Match:
Institution chooses focused achievable approach over comprehensive ideal that would require transmitting/possessing impossible amounts of knowledge. Same capability-constraint reasoning, same structural configuration.
Why Other Choices Fail:
(A) - Wrong Process (Surface Similarity):
Involves justice/legal context (surface similarity) but wrong structure—this is about applying justice rules, not choosing between types of justice based on capability constraints. Missing the ideal vs. achievable choice structure.
(B) - Different Value Trade-off:
Profitability vs. social responsibility is about competing values, not about impossible requirements. Nothing suggests social responsibility requires impossible capabilities—it's a choice of priorities, not a capability-constrained decision. Wrong reasoning type.
(D) - Missing Impossibility Element:
Gradual vs. comprehensive is about pace/scope, not about impossible requirements. The passage doesn't argue cosmic justice is too comprehensive temporally—it argues it requires impossible omniscience. Structural element missing.
(E) - Opposite Structure:
Sustainable vs. industrial development isn't choosing achievable over impossible—both are achievable options with different consequences. Also, sustainable isn't clearly the "procedural/achievable" alternative to an "ideal" industrial development. Structure doesn't map.
Example 3: Relationship Preservation Test
Question:
"The reasoning in the passages most closely parallels which of the following?"
Answer Choices:
(A) Economic models should use realistic assumptions rather than idealized assumptions because realistic assumptions produce more accurate predictions
(B) ✓ CORRECT: Urban planning should focus on creating efficient transportation networks rather than attempting to eliminate all traffic congestion because eliminating all congestion would require controlling every vehicle movement
(C) Scientific research should prioritize applied studies over theoretical investigations because applied research has more immediate practical value
(D) Businesses should balance short-term profits with long-term sustainability because sustainable practices ensure future viability
(E) International diplomacy should emphasize negotiation over military intervention because negotiation is less costly in human lives
Detailed Analysis:
Why (B) is Correct:
Relationship Preservation Check:
| Relationship Type | Passage | Answer (B) | ✓ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Requirement | CJ requires omniscience | Zero congestion requires control all vehicles | ✓ |
| Impossibility | Humans lack omniscience | Cannot control every vehicle | ✓ |
| Conclusion | Should pursue TJ not CJ | Should pursue efficiency not zero congestion | ✓ |
| Reasoning | Capability constraint | Capability constraint | ✓ |
All key relationships preserved: requires impossible capability → cannot achieve → pursue achievable alternative ✓
Why Other Choices Fail Relationship Test:
(A) - Different Reasoning Type:
Argues for realistic over idealized because realistic = "more accurate predictions." But passage doesn't argue traditional justice is more accurate—it argues cosmic justice is impossible. Reasoning from prediction accuracy ≠ reasoning from impossibility.
(C) - Value-Based Not Capability-Based:
Prioritizes applied over theoretical because of "practical value," not because theoretical requires impossible capabilities. This is value reasoning (what's more valuable), not capability reasoning (what's possible). Relationship type changes.
(D) - Trade-off Not Impossibility:
"Balance" suggests both are achievable and should be combined, not that one is impossible. Also reasons from "future viability," not from impossibility. The relationship changes from impossibility-constraint to prudent-balancing.
(E) - Consequence-Based Not Capability-Based:
Reasons from consequences ("less costly in lives"), not from impossibility or capability constraints. Both negotiation and military intervention are possible; choice is based on outcomes, not on one requiring impossible capabilities. Reasoning pattern doesn't match.
7 Common Mistakes on Analogy Questions
❌ Mistake #1: Choosing Surface Over Structure
Selecting answers with topical similarity (both about justice, both about institutions) while ignoring structural differences.
Example:
Wrong: "A court applying fair procedures" (justice topic) vs. Right: "A medical system choosing achievable treatment over perfect health" (capability-constraint structure)
❌ Mistake #2: Incomplete Element Mapping
Failing to verify that ALL structural components from the passage have corresponding elements in the answer.
Example:
"Institutions should be practical" captures practicality but lacks: ideal goal, impossible requirement, achievable alternative—too simple to be analogous
❌ Mistake #3: Ignoring Relationship Types
Verifying elements map but forgetting to check that relationships are preserved (causal, constraining, enabling, etc.).
Example:
If passage has "requires impossible X," answer can't have "benefits from additional X"—changes necessity to advantage, distorts relationship
❌ Mistake #4: Confusing Analogy with Application
Treating analogy questions like principle application—applying same principle vs. finding same structure are related but distinct tasks.
Distinction:
Principle application: Abstract to general rule, apply rule elsewhere. Analogy: Find case with identical structure, elements can be anything
❌ Mistake #5: Accepting Partial Structural Match
Settling for answers that match 2-3 structural elements while missing others—analogies must be complete, not partial.
Example:
"Choose realistic over ideal" matches 50% of structure but lacks impossibility element and capability reasoning—incomplete = wrong
❌ Mistake #6: Reversing Analogical Direction
Finding cases where the ideal is pursued over the practical, when passage argues for practical over ideal—structural inversion.
Example:
"Pursue theoretical ideal despite practical constraints" reverses the passage's preference structure—must maintain directional consistency
❌ Mistake #7: Changing Reasoning Type
Accepting answers that reason from consequences, values, or efficiency when passage reasons from capability constraints.
Example:
Passage reasons: "Cannot because impossible." Wrong answer reasons: "Should not because expensive/harmful." Different justification type breaks analogy
4-Week Practice Strategy for Analogy Questions
Week 1: Structure Recognition
- Days 1-2: Read 15 LSAT passages, identify and abstract the core structural pattern for each argument (create structure formulas)
- Days 3-4: Practice distinguishing structural from surface similarity—take 30 pairs of scenarios, classify as structurally similar or only topically similar
- Days 5-6: Complete 40 analogy questions (untimed), create explicit element mappings (A→A', B→B', etc.) for each correct answer
- Day 7: Review all errors, categorize by mistake type (surface similarity, incomplete mapping, relationship distortion)
Week 2: Mapping Mastery
- Days 8-10: Practice the 6-step mapping process—complete 50 analogy questions, write out complete mappings showing one-to-one correspondence
- Days 11-12: Focus on relationship preservation—identify relationship types (causal, constraint, requirement) and verify they're maintained in analogies
- Days 13-14: Complete 4 full RC sections, track analogy question accuracy separately (target 75%+ accuracy)
Week 3: Elimination Techniques
- Days 15-17: Practice systematic elimination—for 60 analogy questions, identify why each wrong answer fails (surface only, incomplete, relationship change)
- Days 18-19: Focus on law/philosophical passages (like Cosmic Justice)—abstract complex multi-component arguments into structural templates
- Days 20-21: Complete 5 full RC sections, focus on speed—aim to complete structural abstraction within 30 seconds
Week 4: Integration & Timing
- Days 22-24: Complete 6 full RC sections under strict timing—aim for 90 seconds per analogy question including reading passage
- Days 25-26: Review all analogy errors from timed practice; ensure no recurring pattern errors
- Days 27-28: Final practice with most recent PrepTests—target 85%+ accuracy on analogy questions under timed conditions
Success Metrics (End of 4 Weeks)
- Abstract passage structure to formula within 30 seconds
- Distinguish structural from surface similarity with 100% accuracy
- Score 90%+ on untimed analogy questions
- Score 85%+ on timed analogy questions
- Create complete element mappings (passage → answer) systematically
- Identify relationship types and verify preservation automatically
- Eliminate wrong answers within 15 seconds per choice
- Recognize all seven common mistake patterns instantly
Mathematical Framework for Structural Analogies
Formal Definition of Structural Analogy
Given a passage structure \( S_P \):
\( S_P = \{E_1, E_2, \ldots, E_n\} \) with relations \( R = \{r_1, r_2, \ldots, r_m\} \)
Where \( E_i \) are structural elements and \( r_j \) are relationships between elements
An answer \( S_A \) is structurally analogous if:
Condition 1 - Bijective Mapping:
\( \exists \) bijection \( f: \{E_1, \ldots, E_n\} \to \{E'_1, \ldots, E'_n\} \)
Condition 2 - Relation Preservation:
\( \forall r_j(E_i, E_k) \in R: r_j(f(E_i), f(E_k)) \) holds in \( S_A \)
Condition 3 - Structural Completeness:
\( |S_P| = |S_A| \) and \( |R_P| = |R_A| \)
In Plain Language:
Every passage element maps to exactly one answer element (bijection), every relationship between passage elements is preserved between corresponding answer elements (relation preservation), and the answer has the same structural complexity as the passage (completeness).
Cosmic Justice Structure Formalized:
Elements:
\( E_1 \) = Agent (institution)
\( E_2 \) = Ideal goal (cosmic justice)
\( E_3 \) = Achievable goal (traditional justice)
\( E_4 \) = Required capability (omniscience)
\( E_5 \) = Actual capability (human judgment)
Relations:
\( r_1(E_2, E_4) \): \( E_2 \) requires \( E_4 \) (cosmic justice requires omniscience)
\( r_2(E_1, E_4) \): \( E_1 \) lacks \( E_4 \) (institutions lack omniscience)
\( r_3(E_1, E_3) \): \( E_1 \) possesses capability for \( E_3 \) (can achieve traditional justice)
\( r_4(E_1, E_3, E_2) \): \( E_1 \) should pursue \( E_3 \) not \( E_2 \) (conclusion)
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 analogy questions
- The Official LSAT SuperPrep Series — Includes comprehensive explanations for structural reasoning
- Reading Comprehension Official Guide — Strategies specific to recognizing analogous structures
- 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests Series — Collections of 10 real exams in each volume
- Comparative Reading passages — Practice identifying structural relationships across paired texts
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 analogy questions digitally
- Question Filtering — Isolate analogy 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 Analogy Questions
- Structure trumps surface: LSAT analogies require identical logical structure, not topical similarity—two cases about completely different subjects can be perfect analogies if they share the same relational pattern
- Elements must map bijectively: Every structural component in the passage must correspond to exactly one component in the answer, and vice versa—incomplete mappings break the analogy
- Relationships must be preserved: If A causes B in the passage, corresponding elements must have a causal relationship in the answer—changing causal to correlational or constraint to enablement breaks the analogy
- Abstraction is essential: Convert passage cases to abstract structural templates (agent, goal, constraint, requirement) before evaluating answer choices
- Complexity must match: If the passage structure has five elements in specific relationships, the analogous case must have five corresponding elements in the same relationships—not three, not seven
- Reasoning type matters: If the passage reasons from capability constraints, the answer must reason from capability constraints—not from values, consequences, or efficiency
- Use systematic verification: Apply the 6-step process: abstract structure, identify elements, verify correspondence, check relationships, confirm completeness, eliminate false analogies
- Watch for seven fatal flaws: Surface similarity only, incomplete mapping, relationship distortion, confusing analogy with application, partial matches, structural reversal, and reasoning type changes
- Cosmic Justice provides perfect template: The capability-constrained institutional design structure appears across legal, medical, educational, environmental, and economic contexts
- Practice with official materials exclusively: Khan Academy and LSAC PrepTests contain authentic analogy questions with the precise structural sophistication you'll encounter on test day
Quick Reference: Analogy Question Checklist
Before Selecting Your Answer, Verify:
✓ Have I abstracted the passage to structural template?
✓ Does every passage element have a corresponding answer element?
✓ Does every answer element map to a passage element (bijection)?
✓ Are all relationships preserved (causal, constraint, requirement)?
✓ Does the answer have the same structural complexity as passage?
✓ Is the reasoning type identical (not just similar)?
✓ Have I rejected surface similarity without structural match?
Red Flags — Eliminate If Answer:
❌ Same topic, different structure
❌ Missing structural elements
❌ Changes relationship types
❌ Incomplete element mapping
❌ Wrong structural complexity
❌ Different reasoning type
Cosmic Justice Structure Template
Institution with limited capability
↓
Choice: Ideal (requires impossible X) vs. Achievable (within capabilities)
↓
Should choose Achievable (capability-constraint reasoning)
Master LSAT Analogy Questions Today
Transform your LSAT Reading Comprehension score by mastering structural reasoning and analogical mapping. Develop the pattern recognition skills essential for legal reasoning and law school success by learning to identify identical logical structures across different contexts.