Identify the Principle: Master LSAT Principle Questions
Learn proven strategies to recognize general rules, abstract specific arguments, and ace identify the principle questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section with official examples and expert techniques.
Identify the principle questions, also called principle questions, are a distinctive and frequently appearing question type in the LSAT Logical Reasoning section. These questions test your ability to recognize the general rule or broad guideline that underlies a specific argument or situation. Success requires moving beyond the particular details to identify the abstract principle that governs the reasoning.
The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) includes principle questions to assess a fundamental legal skill: recognizing how general legal principles apply to specific cases, and conversely, how specific cases exemplify broader rules. This abstraction ability—moving between the specific and the general—is central to legal reasoning and case law analysis.
What Are Identify the Principle Questions
Principle questions come in two main varieties, though both test your ability to work with general rules and specific situations:
📌 Two Types of Principle Questions
Type 1: Identify the Principle (Most Common)
- Stimulus: Specific argument or situation
- Answer choices: General principles
- Task: Find which general principle underlies or justifies the specific argument
Type 2: Apply/Conform to the Principle
- Stimulus: General principle
- Answer choices: Specific situations
- Task: Find which specific situation conforms to (or violates) the general principle
Common Question Stems
For Type 1 (Identify the Principle):
- "Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"
- "The reasoning above conforms most closely to which one of the following principles?"
- "Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the conclusion drawn?"
- "Which of the following generalizations, if applicable, best justifies the reasoning?"
For Type 2 (Apply the Principle):
- "Which one of the following judgments conforms most closely to the principle above?"
- "Which of the following situations illustrates the principle described above?"
- "The principle above, if valid, would most justify which of the following judgments?"
Specific Argument ⟷ General Principle
Principle questions test bidirectional abstraction: from specific to general, or from general to specific
Official LSAC Example Analysis
Let's examine an official LSAT principle question from the Law School Admission Council to understand this question type in practice:
📚 Official LSAC Example
Journalist: To reconcile the need for profits sufficient to support new drug research with the moral imperative to provide medicines to those who most need them but cannot afford them, some pharmaceutical companies feel justified in selling a drug in rich nations at one price and in poor nations at a much lower price. But this practice is unjustified. A nation with a low average income may still have a substantial middle class better able to pay for new drugs than are many of the poorer citizens of an overall wealthier nation.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the journalist's reasoning?
- People who are ill deserve more consideration than do healthy people, regardless of their relative socioeconomic positions.
- Wealthy institutions have an obligation to expend at least some of their resources to assist those incapable of assisting themselves.
- Whether one deserves special consideration depends on one's needs rather than on characteristics of the society to which one belongs. ✓
- The people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health care than do the people in poorer nations.
- Unequal access to health care is more unfair than an unequal distribution of wealth.
Step-by-Step Analysis
Step 1: Identify the Conclusion
The journalist concludes: "This practice [differential pricing by nation] is unjustified."
Step 2: Identify the Evidence/Reasoning
The journalist's reasoning: Poor nations may have middle-class citizens who can afford drugs better than poor citizens of wealthy nations. Therefore, pricing by nation (rather than individual need) is wrong.
Step 3: Abstract the Reasoning Pattern
Abstraction Process
Specific Argument: Pricing should be based on individual ability to pay, not national wealth
↓ Abstract to ↓
General Principle: Consideration should be based on individual characteristics/needs, not group membership
Step 4: Evaluate Answer Choices
✓ Why Option C is Correct
- Matches the abstraction: "Depends on one's needs" = individual characteristics
- Captures the contrast: "Rather than on characteristics of the society" = not group membership
- Justifies the conclusion: If this principle is valid, pricing by nation is indeed unjustified
- General enough to be a principle: Could apply to many situations beyond drug pricing
Why Other Answers Are Wrong
- (A) Incorrect: The argument isn't about ill vs. healthy people—it's about how to determine who gets consideration (individual need vs. national wealth)
- (B) Incorrect: This addresses obligations of wealthy institutions but doesn't justify the journalist's specific criticism about using national wealth as the criterion
- (D) Incorrect: Too extreme and specific—the journalist's point is about the criterion used, not equal access across nations
- (E) Incorrect: Compares two types of unfairness but doesn't address the journalist's reasoning about appropriate criteria for pricing
Strategy for Type 1: Identify the Principle
When the stimulus presents a specific argument and answer choices offer general principles, use this systematic approach:
Break Down the Specific Argument
Identify the conclusion, evidence, and reasoning pattern. What specific claim is being made? What specific evidence supports it? What's the logical connection?
Abstract the Reasoning
Replace specific terms with general categories. "Doctors" becomes "experts," "patients" becomes "those affected," "this drug" becomes "resources" or "benefits." Focus on the structure of the reasoning.
Predict the General Principle
Before looking at answer choices, articulate the general rule in your own words: "Actions should be judged by their consequences," or "Individual circumstances should determine treatment," etc.
Evaluate Each Answer Choice
Ask: If this general principle were true, would it justify the specific reasoning in the argument? The correct answer should make the conclusion follow logically from the evidence.
Apply the Substitution Test
Take the principle and apply it back to the specific situation. Does it lead to the same conclusion the argument reaches? If yes, it's likely correct.
⚠️ Common Mistake
Don't choose answers that merely relate to the topic without justifying the reasoning. A principle about healthcare might be topically related but fail to support the specific logical connection in the argument. The principle must justify the inferential move from evidence to conclusion.
Strategy for Type 2: Apply the Principle
When the stimulus presents a general principle and answer choices offer specific situations, use this approach:
Diagram the Principle
Break the general principle into its component parts. Identify conditions, requirements, and outcomes. Use conditional logic notation if helpful: If X, then Y
Identify Key Terms and Relationships
Note crucial words like "all," "some," "only," "necessary," "sufficient," "unless," etc. These determine the principle's precise scope and requirements.
Predict Conforming Situations
Before reading answer choices, think of examples that would satisfy all elements of the principle. This helps you recognize correct answers more quickly.
Test Each Answer Against the Principle
For each situation, systematically check whether it satisfies every requirement of the principle. One failed requirement means the situation doesn't conform.
Watch for Scope Mismatches
Eliminate situations that go beyond the principle's scope or fail to include necessary elements. The situation must match the principle's requirements precisely.
💡 Conditional Logic in Principles
Many principles use conditional logic. Master these patterns:
- If A → B means: When A occurs, B must follow
- A only if B means: A cannot occur without B
- A unless B means: If not B, then A
- All A are B means: A → B
The Art of Abstraction
The most critical skill for principle questions is abstraction—the ability to see the general pattern underlying a specific argument. This mental transformation is bidirectional: moving from specific to general (Type 1) or from general to specific (Type 2).
Abstraction Process for Type 1 Questions
From Specific to General: The Abstraction Ladder
Level 1 - Concrete Specific:
"Dr. Smith should not prescribe this medication to Patient Jones because Jones has a heart condition that contraindications it."
Level 2 - Less Specific:
"Doctors should not prescribe medications that are contraindicated by patients' conditions."
Level 3 - General Principle:
"Experts should not recommend actions that are known to be harmful given specific characteristics of those affected."
Level 4 - Maximally Abstract:
"Actions should be avoided when they predictably cause harm to the intended beneficiaries."
The correct principle typically sits at Level 2 or 3—abstract enough to be general, but specific enough to clearly justify the argument without applying to every possible situation.
Key Abstraction Replacements
| Specific Term | Abstract Replacement | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Doctors, lawyers, engineers | Experts, professionals, specialists | "Doctors should..." → "Experts should..." |
| Students, patients, clients | Those served, beneficiaries, affected parties | "Patients deserve..." → "Those affected deserve..." |
| Schools, hospitals, companies | Institutions, organizations, entities | "Schools must..." → "Institutions must..." |
| Money, resources, time | Resources, benefits, valuable goods | "Distribute money..." → "Allocate resources..." |
| Traffic laws, tax codes, contracts | Rules, regulations, agreements | "Obey traffic laws..." → "Follow established rules..." |
Specific Case + Remove Particular Details + Preserve Structure = General Principle
Common Types of Principles on the LSAT
While principles can take countless forms, certain types appear frequently on the LSAT. Recognizing these patterns accelerates your analysis:
1. Normative Principles (Should/Ought)
These principles prescribe what should or ought to be done. They use normative language indicating moral or practical obligations.
Example: "People should be held responsible for consequences they could reasonably foresee."
Key words: should, ought, must, required, obligated, duty
2. Conditional Principles (If-Then)
These principles establish logical relationships between conditions and outcomes.
Example: "If an action benefits society as a whole, then it is morally permissible even if it harms some individuals."
Structure: Condition → Consequence
3. Comparative Principles
These principles establish priorities or rankings between competing values or considerations.
Example: "Individual liberty is more important than collective security."
Key words: more important than, outweighs, takes precedence over, priority
4. Desert/Entitlement Principles
These principles specify what people deserve or are entitled to based on certain characteristics or actions.
Example: "Those who contribute more to a collective effort deserve a greater share of the benefits."
Key words: deserve, entitled to, merits, has a right to
5. Fairness/Justice Principles
These principles articulate standards for fair treatment or just distribution.
Example: "Similar cases should be treated similarly unless there is a relevant difference between them."
Key concepts: fairness, justice, equality, impartiality
6. Consequentialist Principles
These principles judge actions by their outcomes or consequences.
Example: "An action is justified if and only if it produces the best overall consequences."
Focus: Results, outcomes, effects, consequences
Common Wrong Answer Traps
Principle questions include predictable wrong answer patterns. Recognizing these helps you eliminate incorrect choices efficiently:
1. Too Specific (Not General Enough)
These answers stay too close to the specific details of the argument and don't rise to the level of a general principle. Principles should apply to multiple situations.
2. Too General (Overly Broad)
These answers state principles so broad they could justify almost anything, including reasoning that contradicts the argument. The principle should be tailored to the argument's specific pattern.
3. Topically Related But Logically Irrelevant
These answers discuss the same topic (healthcare, education, law) but don't actually justify the inferential move from evidence to conclusion in the argument.
4. Reverses the Logic
These answers get the logical direction backward, stating B → A when the argument requires A → B.
5. Introduces New Elements
These answers bring in concepts or criteria not present in the original argument. The principle should capture what's actually there, not add new considerations.
6. Scope Mismatch
For Type 2 questions, these situations fail to meet all requirements of the principle, or they include elements beyond the principle's scope.
⚠️ The Necessity Test
Ask: "Does this principle need to be true for the argument's reasoning to work?" If the argument could still work without this principle, or if the principle doesn't capture the core logical move, eliminate it. The correct principle should be necessary (or at least highly supportive) for the reasoning.
Advanced Techniques for Principle Questions
Technique 1: The Substitution Method
For Type 1 questions, substitute the principle back into the argument. Does it create a valid logical bridge from evidence to conclusion? If yes, it's likely correct.
Technique 2: The Parallel Case Test
Create a completely different scenario that follows the same pattern as the argument. If a principle correctly describes your parallel case, it probably correctly describes the original argument.
🧪 Parallel Case Example
Original Argument: "Students who work hard deserve high grades, even if they're not naturally talented."
Candidate Principle: "Effort should be rewarded regardless of natural ability."
Parallel Case: "Employees who demonstrate dedication deserve recognition, even if they're not the most skilled."
Result: ✓ The principle accurately describes both cases, confirming it captures the right pattern.
Technique 3: Identify the Logical Gap
In Type 1 questions, the principle often fills a logical gap between evidence and conclusion. Identify what's missing, and look for a principle that bridges that gap.
Technique 4: Conditional Logic Mapping
For Type 2 questions with complex conditional principles, create a simple diagram:
Principle: "One should accept advice only if the advisor has relevant expertise and no conflicting interest."
Diagram:
Accept Advice → (Relevant Expertise ∧ No Conflict)
Test: Any conforming situation must have someone accepting advice based on both expertise AND absence of conflict.
Technique 5: The Elimination Hierarchy
Eliminate answers in this order for maximum efficiency:
- First: Answers with scope mismatches (too narrow/broad)
- Second: Answers introducing irrelevant new concepts
- Third: Answers with reversed or distorted logic
- Fourth: Choose between remaining answers using substitution test
How to Practice Principle Questions
Effective practice with official LSAC materials builds abstraction skills and pattern recognition. Follow this structured approach:
Phase 1: Abstraction Skill Building (Weeks 1-2)
- Complete 15-20 Type 1 principle questions from official LSAT PrepTests untimed
- For each argument, practice writing out the principle in your own words before looking at answers
- Create an abstraction ladder (as shown earlier) for each argument
- Review why wrong answers fail—is it scope, relevance, or logic?
- Build a catalog of common principle types you encounter
Phase 2: Conditional Logic & Type 2 Questions (Weeks 3-4)
- Focus on Type 2 questions (applying principles to specific situations)
- Practice diagramming conditional principles before evaluating answer choices
- Work on identifying all requirements a situation must meet to conform
- Begin timing yourself at 90 seconds per question
- Track which principle types give you the most trouble
Phase 3: Integration & Speed (Week 5+)
- Complete full Logical Reasoning sections under timed conditions
- Aim for 60-75 seconds per principle question
- Target 85-90% accuracy on principle questions
- Review every principle question to strengthen abstraction skills
- Practice moving quickly between specific and general thinking
📈 Mastery Indicators
- You can predict principles accurately before reading answer choices
- You recognize common principle types immediately
- You eliminate 3-4 wrong answers quickly based on scope or relevance
- You can abstract arguments automatically without conscious effort
- You achieve 85%+ accuracy in timed practice
Official LSAT Resources for Principle Questions
Use only official materials from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and authorized partners for practice:
Primary Official Resources
- LSAC Official Logical Reasoning Sample Questions - Free sample questions including principle questions with official explanations
- LSAC Official LSAT Prep - Official preparation materials and study resources
- Official LSAT PrepTests - Published PrepTests with real, previously administered questions
- Khan Academy LSAT Prep - Free official LSAT preparation in partnership with LSAC
- LSAC Logical Reasoning Overview - Official information about Logical Reasoning section
Recommended PrepTest Range
For current question styles and difficulty:
- PrepTests 62-91: Most recent exams with current format
- SuperPrep I & II: Official books with comprehensive explanations
- 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests: Collections of authentic exams
💡 Principle Question Frequency
Principle questions typically appear 3-5 times per Logical Reasoning section, making them one of the more common question types. With potentially two scored LR sections on your LSAT, mastering principle questions can significantly impact your score. Their learnable nature and predictable patterns make them excellent opportunities for consistent points.
⚠️ Use Official Materials Only
While commercial test prep companies provide valuable strategies, always practice with official LSAC questions. Unofficial principle questions may not accurately replicate LSAT abstraction levels, scope requirements, or answer patterns. Use commercial resources for strategy instruction, but apply those strategies exclusively to official LSAC materials.
Frequently Asked Questions
Test Day Strategy for Principle Questions
✓ Quick Reference Checklist
For Type 1 (Identify the Principle):
- Break down the argument (conclusion + evidence)
- Abstract the reasoning pattern
- Predict the principle before reading answers
- Eliminate wrong answer types (too specific, too broad, irrelevant)
- Apply substitution test to remaining choices
- Select the principle that best justifies the reasoning
For Type 2 (Apply the Principle):
- Diagram the principle clearly
- Identify all requirements situations must meet
- Note conditional logic and scope limitations
- Test each situation systematically
- Eliminate failures to meet any requirement
- Confirm the match satisfies all elements
Time Management
⏱️ Optimal Timing
- Type 1 questions: 60-75 seconds (with practice)
- Type 2 questions: 75-90 seconds (more checking required)
- Complex conditional principles: Up to 90 seconds acceptable
Speed Strategy: If you can accurately predict the principle in Type 1 questions, you can often identify the correct answer in 45-60 seconds. Invest time in understanding the argument—fast evaluation follows naturally.
Confidence Builders
- Principle questions are highly learnable: Unlike some question types requiring logical intuition, these reward systematic practice
- Patterns are recognizable: After 40-50 practice questions, you'll spot principle types immediately
- Abstraction becomes automatic: Initial effort pays off—the skill becomes second nature
- They're common enough to matter: 6-10 principle questions across both LR sections significantly impact your score
- High accuracy is achievable: Most well-prepared test-takers reach 85-90% accuracy
Key Takeaways
Mastering identify the principle questions in LSAT Logical Reasoning requires developing strong abstraction skills—the ability to move fluidly between specific arguments and general rules. Success depends on recognizing that principles operate at a middle level of abstraction: general enough to apply broadly, but specific enough to clearly justify particular reasoning patterns.
The two types of principle questions test complementary skills: Type 1 questions require abstracting upward from specific to general (finding the rule that justifies the reasoning), while Type 2 questions require concretizing downward from general to specific (finding situations that conform to the rule). Both types reward systematic analysis, careful attention to logical structure, and the ability to eliminate answers based on scope mismatches and logical irrelevance.
Abstraction Skill + Pattern Recognition + Conditional Logic + Practice = 85-90% Accuracy
With dedicated practice using official LSAC materials, deliberate work on abstraction through the techniques outlined in this guide, and mastery of conditional logic structures, principle questions transform from challenging puzzles into reliable opportunities to demonstrate your analytical skills and earn consistent points toward your target LSAT score.
🎯 Your Action Plan
- Access official LSAT PrepTests from LSAC.org
- Isolate 40-50 principle questions (both types) for focused practice
- Practice abstraction ladders for Type 1 questions
- Diagram conditional principles for Type 2 questions
- Build a catalog of common principle types and patterns
- Master the substitution test and parallel case method
- Track accuracy separately for each principle type
- Integrate principle questions into full-section timed practice
- Review every question to reinforce abstraction patterns
With systematic practice, mastery of abstraction, and understanding of conditional logic, you'll approach identify the principle questions with confidence and precision on test day, consistently recognizing general rules underlying specific arguments and identifying situations that conform to stated principles.