LSAT Information Inference Questions: Cosmic Justice Law Passage
Master Factual Inference Questions with Logical Reasoning, Worked Examples & Expert Strategies
Understanding Information Inference Questions
Information inference questions represent the heart of logical reasoning in LSAT Reading Comprehension. Unlike recognition questions that test reading accuracy or view inference questions that test understanding of author's positions, information inference questions test your ability to derive new factual conclusions from presented information through valid logical reasoning.
These questions ask: Given the facts in the passage, what else must be true? They test the same logical reasoning skills you'll use in law practice—taking established facts and determining what conclusions necessarily follow. The Cosmic Justice paired passages provide an excellent framework because they contain multiple logical relationships between concepts like omniscience, justice types, human capabilities, and institutional limitations.
Mastering information inferences requires understanding formal logic, recognizing valid reasoning patterns, and avoiding common logical fallacies. This is where LSAT Reading Comprehension intersects most directly with Logical Reasoning.
Understanding the Three Core Question Types
To excel on information inferences, you must first understand how they differ from recognition and view inference questions:
Key Distinction: Information Inferences
Information inferences ask about factual conclusions, not opinions or beliefs.
These questions test formal logic. If the passage provides premises \( P_1 \) and \( P_2 \), the correct answer is conclusion \( C \) where \( P_1 \land P_2 \Rightarrow C \) (if \( P_1 \) and \( P_2 \) are true, then \( C \) must be true).
Example Using Cosmic Justice:
Premise 1: Cosmic justice requires omniscience
Premise 2: Humans lack omniscience
Valid Inference: Humans cannot achieve cosmic justice
This uses modus tollens: If \( A \Rightarrow B \) and \( \neg B \), then \( \neg A \). If cosmic justice requires omniscience (CJ → O), and humans lack omniscience (¬O), then humans cannot have cosmic justice (¬CJ).
Logical Reasoning Foundations for Information Inferences
Valid Inference Patterns
1. Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent)
Logical Form:
If \( A \), then \( B \)
\( A \) is true
Therefore, \( B \) must be true
LSAT Example:
Passage: "If a legal system pursues cosmic justice, it requires omniscient judges. The proposed system pursues cosmic justice."
Valid Inference: The proposed system requires omniscient judges.
2. Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)
Logical Form:
If \( A \), then \( B \)
\( B \) is false
Therefore, \( A \) must be false
LSAT Example:
Passage: "Cosmic justice requires omniscience. Humans are not omniscient."
Valid Inference: Humans cannot achieve cosmic justice.
3. Universal-to-Particular Inference
Logical Form:
All \( A \) are \( B \)
\( X \) is an \( A \)
Therefore, \( X \) is \( B \)
LSAT Example:
Passage: "All approaches to cosmic justice require omniscience. Compensatory justice is an approach to cosmic justice."
Valid Inference: Compensatory justice requires omniscience.
4. Combining Information (Conjunction)
Logical Form:
\( A \) is true
\( B \) is true
Therefore, \( A \land B \) (both A and B) is true
LSAT Example:
Passage: "Traditional justice focuses on processes. Cosmic justice focuses on outcomes."
Valid Inference: Traditional justice and cosmic justice differ in their focus.
Invalid Inference Patterns (Common Traps)
❌ Affirming the Consequent (Invalid)
If \( A \), then \( B \). \( B \) is true. Therefore, \( A \) is true. ← WRONG
Example: "If cosmic justice, then omniscience required. Omniscience is required. Therefore, cosmic justice." ← Invalid! Other things might require omniscience too.
❌ Denying the Antecedent (Invalid)
If \( A \), then \( B \). \( A \) is false. Therefore, \( B \) is false. ← WRONG
Example: "If cosmic justice, then omniscience. Not cosmic justice. Therefore, no omniscience needed." ← Invalid! Traditional justice might also need some omniscience.
❌ Reversing Universal Statements (Invalid)
All \( A \) are \( B \). Therefore, all \( B \) are \( A \). ← WRONG
Example: "All cosmic justice requires omniscience. Therefore, all that requires omniscience is cosmic justice." ← Invalid!
Key Information from Cosmic Justice Passages
Factual Statements for Inference
Core Facts About Cosmic Justice:
- Cosmic justice requires knowing all relevant things
- Cosmic justice requires properly taking everything into consideration
- Only an omniscient being could render cosmic justice
- Humans have inherent limitations
- Human limitations make cosmic justice impossible through human law
- Cosmic justice and traditional justice are fundamentally different concepts
- Traditional justice concerns impartial processes
- A fair trial with impartial judge/jury = justice (traditional definition)
Valid Inferences from These Facts:
Inference 1 (Modus Tollens):
Cosmic justice requires omniscience (Fact 3)
Humans are not omniscient (implied by Fact 4)
→ Therefore: Humans cannot achieve cosmic justice
Inference 2 (Combination):
Cosmic justice requires knowing all relevant things (Fact 1)
Traditional justice concerns processes, not comprehensive knowledge (Fact 7)
→ Therefore: Traditional justice does not require knowing all relevant things
Inference 3 (Logical Necessity):
Human law cannot achieve cosmic justice (Fact 5)
Legal systems use human law
→ Therefore: Legal systems cannot achieve cosmic justice
6-Step Method for Information Inference Questions
Step 1: Identify Relevant Facts
Locate the passage information relevant to the question. Information inferences often require combining facts from different locations.
Fact-Finding Strategies:
- Scan for keywords: If question asks about "traditional justice," locate all mentions of traditional justice
- Note relationships: Mark conditional statements (if-then), comparisons, and causal claims
- Check multiple paragraphs: Information may be split across different sections
- For paired passages: Determine if you need facts from Passage A, B, or both
Step 2: Map Logical Relationships
Identify the logical structure connecting facts: Are they conditional? Causal? Comparative? Definitional?
Relationship Types:
Conditional (If-Then):
"If cosmic justice, then omniscience required" → If CJ, then O
Definitional (X is Y):
"Cosmic justice is perfect justice accounting for all factors" → CJ = Perfect justice + All factors
Comparative (X vs Y):
"Traditional justice is fundamentally different from cosmic justice" → TJ ≠ CJ (not just degree, but kind)
Step 3: Apply Valid Reasoning Patterns
Use formal logic to determine what must follow. Avoid invalid patterns like affirming the consequent.
Practice: Analyze This Reasoning
Given Facts:
1. Cosmic justice requires omniscience
2. System X does not require omniscience
Question: What can we infer?
✓ Valid Inference: System X does not pursue cosmic justice
Logic: CJ → O. ¬O. Therefore, ¬CJ (Modus Tollens)
✗ Invalid Inference: System X pursues traditional justice
Logic Flaw: Not cosmic justice doesn't automatically mean traditional justice—other options might exist
Step 4: Test "Must Be True" Standard
For each answer, ask: Could this be false even if all passage information is accurate? If yes, it fails the must-be-true standard.
The Must-Be-True Test:
Formula: Can I imagine a scenario where the passage is true BUT this answer is false?
YES - I can imagine it
→ Answer is WRONG
NO - Impossible
→ Answer MUST BE TRUE
Example Application:
Answer: "Some legal systems can achieve cosmic justice"
Test: Can passage be true AND this be true?
Result: NO—passage says human law cannot achieve cosmic justice. All legal systems use human law. Therefore, this answer MUST be false. Eliminate.
Step 5: Eliminate Assumption-Dependent Answers
Valid inferences require NO additional assumptions beyond passage content. If an answer needs you to assume something unstated, it's wrong.
Common Hidden Assumptions:
❌ Causal Assumption:
Passage: "Cosmic justice is difficult. Traditional justice is widely used." Wrong Answer: "Difficulty causes systems to choose traditional justice" ← Assumes causation not stated
❌ Temporal Assumption:
Passage: "Sowell argues X." Wrong Answer: "Sowell has always believed X" ← Assumes belief persistence over time
❌ Uniqueness Assumption:
Passage: "Cosmic justice requires omniscience." Wrong Answer: "Only cosmic justice requires omniscience" ← Assumes nothing else requires it
Step 6: Construct Proof Chain
Before selecting, write out the logical chain from passage to answer. This prevents you from choosing answers that "feel right" but lack logical support.
Proof Chain Template:
Step 1: Passage states...
Step 2: This means... (logical consequence)
Step 3: Combined with [other passage fact]...
Step 4: Therefore, [answer] must be true
Example Chain:
Step 1: Passage: "Cosmic justice requires omniscience"
Step 2: If X achieves cosmic justice → X has omniscience (conditional)
Step 3: Passage: "Humans lack omniscience"
Step 4: Therefore, humans cannot achieve cosmic justice (modus tollens)
Worked Examples: Information Inference Questions
Example 1: Conditional Reasoning (Modus Tollens)
Question:
"The information in the passages most strongly supports which of the following?"
Answer Choices:
(A) Traditional justice is easier to achieve than cosmic justice in most legal systems
(B) Legal systems that do not employ omniscient decision-makers cannot render cosmic justice
(C) ✓ CORRECT: A justice system that lacks omniscient decision-makers does not achieve cosmic justice
(D) The only difference between cosmic and traditional justice is the level of knowledge required
(E) Most contemporary legal systems pursue traditional rather than cosmic justice
Detailed Analysis:
Why (C) is Correct:
Logical Proof Chain:
Premise 1: If cosmic justice, then omniscient decision-makers required (CJ → O)
Premise 2: System lacks omniscient decision-makers (¬O)
Conclusion: System does not achieve cosmic justice (¬CJ)
Logical Form: This is pure modus tollens. If \( A \to B \) and \( \neg B \), then \( \neg A \). The passage explicitly states cosmic justice requires omniscience. Answer (C) applies modus tollens: if a system lacks omniscience, it cannot have cosmic justice.
Textual Support: Both passages state that cosmic justice requires omniscience/knowing all relevant things. This creates the conditional relationship. Answer (C) is the contrapositive, which is logically equivalent and always valid.
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(A) - Not Must-Be-True:
While this may be true, the passage doesn't provide information about comparative ease in "most" legal systems. "Easier" is also not logically required—cosmic justice might be impossible (not just harder). Fails must-be-true standard.
(B) - Uses "Cannot Render":
This is very close to (C), but "cannot render" is stronger/different from "does not achieve." The passage supports that they DON'T achieve it, but "cannot" implies impossibility in all circumstances. (C) is more conservative and directly supported.
(D) - Too Restrictive:
"The ONLY difference" is too strong. Passage B states they're "fundamentally different concepts"—suggesting multiple differences including focus (process vs. outcome), achievability, and knowledge requirements.
(E) - Empirical Claim Not Supported:
Passage doesn't provide information about what "most contemporary legal systems" actually do. This makes an empirical claim about real-world practices not addressed in the philosophical discussion.
Example 2: Combining Information
Question:
"Based on the passages, which of the following must be true about traditional justice?"
Answer Choices:
(A) Traditional justice produces fair outcomes in the majority of cases
(B) ✓ CORRECT: Traditional justice does not require knowledge of all circumstances relevant to a case
(C) Traditional justice is the most common form of justice in Western legal systems
(D) Traditional justice developed as a response to the impossibility of cosmic justice
(E) Traditional justice is morally equivalent to cosmic justice
Detailed Analysis:
Why (B) is Correct:
Logical Proof Chain:
Fact 1: Cosmic justice requires knowledge of all circumstances
Fact 2: Traditional justice concerns impartial processes, not comprehensive outcomes
Fact 3: Traditional justice is fundamentally different from cosmic justice
Inference: If TJ is fundamentally different from CJ, and CJ requires all-circumstances knowledge, then TJ does not require all-circumstances knowledge
Logic: This combines definitional differences with logical necessity. If two things are "fundamentally different" in nature, and one requires X, while the other focuses on something distinct from X (processes vs. comprehensive knowledge), then the other doesn't require X.
Why This Must Be True: Traditional justice is defined by procedural fairness (fair rules, impartial judge/jury), not by comprehensive circumstance consideration. The passage explicitly contrasts these approaches. For TJ to require knowing all circumstances would make it identical to CJ in this crucial respect—contradicting the "fundamentally different" characterization.
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(A) - Outcome Claim Not Supported:
Passage doesn't provide information about how often traditional justice produces fair outcomes. In fact, Passage A notes "many times it seems obvious that traditional justice has not been done." Can't infer "majority of cases."
(C) - Empirical Information Missing:
Passage doesn't provide data about prevalence in Western (or any) legal systems. This makes a sociological/empirical claim not addressed in the philosophical discussion.
(D) - Causal/Historical Claim Unsupported:
Passage doesn't discuss the historical development or causal genesis of traditional justice. While TJ may be more achievable than CJ, "developed as a response" implies intentional historical causation not stated.
(E) - Moral Equivalence Not Addressed:
Passage discusses achievability and conceptual differences, not moral value. The term "fundamentally different" refers to nature/concept, not moral worth. Passage provides no basis for moral comparison.
Example 3: Paired Passage Inference
Question:
"It can be inferred from the passages that both the author of Passage A and Sowell (Passage B) would agree with which of the following?"
Answer Choices:
(A) ✓ CORRECT: Complete knowledge of all relevant circumstances is required for cosmic justice
(B) Legal systems should abandon the pursuit of perfect justice
(C) Traditional justice is more valuable than cosmic justice for human societies
(D) Most legal cases cannot be decided with complete fairness
(E) The concept of omniscience is relevant only to religious discussions
Detailed Analysis:
Why (A) is Correct:
Proof from Both Passages:
Passage A Support: "Cosmic justice...refers to the perfect justice that only an omniscient being could render: rewards and punishments that are truly deserved when all relevant things are properly taken into consideration."
Passage B Support: Sowell states cosmic justice "would require knowing everyone's circumstances" and "everything relevant for determining what each person truly deserved" and that "only an omniscient observer could make such determinations."
Logical Inference: Both passages explicitly link cosmic justice to comprehensive/complete knowledge of all relevant circumstances. This is a definitional requirement both authors agree upon.
Why This is Information Inference, Not View Inference: This question asks what both would "agree with"—but it's testing factual agreement about the definition/requirements of cosmic justice, not their opinions about policy or values. Both passages present this as definitional fact about what cosmic justice entails.
Why Other Choices Are Wrong:
(B) - Only Sowell's Prescription:
Passage B (Sowell) argues systems should focus on traditional rather than cosmic justice, but Passage A is descriptive/neutral—just explaining Sowell's view, not endorsing it. Can't infer Passage A author agrees with this normative claim.
(C) - Normative Claim, Not Factual:
"More valuable" is a value judgment. While Sowell argues for traditional justice, Passage A doesn't make value comparisons—it describes the concepts. Can't infer both agree on comparative value.
(D) - Unsupported Generalization:
Neither passage discusses what happens in "most" legal cases or quantifies fairness achievement rates. This makes an empirical claim about case outcomes not addressed.
(E) - Contradicts Passage Content:
Both passages use omniscience in the context of justice theory and legal philosophy, not religion. This directly contradicts how the passages employ the concept.
7 Common Mistakes on Information Inferences
❌ Mistake #1: Confusing "Could Be True" with "Must Be True"
The answer sounds plausible or likely, but isn't logically required by passage information.
Example:
Passage: "Cosmic justice is difficult for humans to achieve." Answer: "Most legal systems don't pursue cosmic justice." ← Seems reasonable, but passage doesn't tell us what most systems actually do—only that CJ is difficult.
❌ Mistake #2: Invalid Conditional Reasoning
Reversing or negating conditionals incorrectly (affirming consequent, denying antecedent).
Example:
Passage: "If CJ, then omniscience." Wrong inference: "If omniscience, then CJ" ← Reversed! Or: "If not CJ, then not omniscience" ← Negated antecedent!
❌ Mistake #3: Scope Expansion
Extending the inference beyond what the passage actually covers.
Example:
Passage discusses legal justice → Wrong answer about "all social institutions" or "all human endeavors." Stay within stated scope.
❌ Mistake #4: Assuming Causal Relationships
Inferring that correlation or sequence implies causation.
Example:
Passage: "CJ is impossible. Systems use TJ." Wrong: "The impossibility of CJ causes systems to use TJ." ← Assumes causation not stated.
❌ Mistake #5: Confusing Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions
Mixing up what's required (necessary) versus what's enough (sufficient).
Example:
"Omniscience is necessary for CJ" (if CJ, must have O) ≠ "Omniscience is sufficient for CJ" (if O, automatically have CJ). Passage states the former, not the latter.
❌ Mistake #6: Unwarranted Generalization
Turning specific statements into universal claims or vice versa.
Example:
Passage: "Many times traditional justice seems inadequate" → Wrong: "Traditional justice is always inadequate." Changed "many" to "always."
❌ Mistake #7: Importing Outside Knowledge
Using what you know about the topic rather than what the passage states.
Example:
You know Sowell is a libertarian economist, so you infer he opposes government regulation—but the passage only discusses justice concepts in law, not economic policy. Stick to passage content only.
4-Week Mastery Plan for Information Inference Questions
Week 1: Logic Foundations
- Days 1-2: Study formal logic: modus ponens, modus tollens, conditional reasoning, necessary vs. sufficient
- Days 3-4: Practice identifying logical relationships in 5 LSAT passages (mark all conditionals, comparisons, definitions)
- Days 5-6: Complete 20 information inference questions, writing out the logical form for each
- Day 7: Review all mistakes; identify which logical error pattern caused each error
Week 2: Recognition & Application
- Days 8-9: Practice distinguishing information inferences from recognition and view inference questions
- Days 10-11: Focus on "must be true" standard—eliminate 30 wrong answers, explaining why each fails this test
- Days 12-13: Work through paired passages, combining information from both passages
- Day 14: Complete 3 full RC sections, tracking information inference accuracy separately
Week 3: Advanced Reasoning
- Days 15-17: Practice constructing proof chains for every correct answer before selecting it
- Days 18-19: Focus on law passages specifically (like Cosmic Justice); master legal reasoning patterns
- Days 20-21: Identify and eliminate answers requiring hidden assumptions (practice recognizing assumption-dependence)
Week 4: Integration & Timing
- Days 22-24: Complete 4 full RC sections under strict timing (8-9 minutes per passage)
- Days 25-26: Review all information inference errors from timed sections; categorize by error type
- Days 27-28: Final practice with most recent PrepTests; aim for 85%+ accuracy on information inferences
Success Metrics (End of 4 Weeks)
- Correctly identify all conditional relationships in a passage within 30 seconds
- Score 90%+ on untimed information inference questions
- Score 80%+ on timed information inference questions
- Write valid proof chains (passage → logical step → answer) for all correct answers
- Eliminate wrong answers within 10 seconds based on logical invalidity
- Distinguish information inferences from other question types with 100% accuracy
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 questions
- The Official LSAT SuperPrep Series — Includes comprehensive explanations for all question types
- Reading Comprehension Official Guide — Strategies specific to RC inference questions
- 10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests Series — Collections of 10 real exams in each volume
- The New Official LSAT TriplePrep — Recent PrepTests with modern question formats
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 questions digitally
- Question Filtering — Isolate information inference 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 Information Inferences
- Information inferences test logical reasoning: These questions assess your ability to derive factual conclusions that must be true based on passage information—not opinions, views, or beliefs
- Master formal logic patterns: Valid inferences follow modus ponens, modus tollens, universal-to-particular reasoning, and proper information combination—avoid invalid patterns like affirming the consequent
- Apply the "must be true" standard: Correct answers cannot possibly be false if passage information is accurate—eliminate any answer you can imagine being false while passage remains true
- Map logical relationships: Identify conditional statements (if-then), comparisons, causal claims, and definitions as you read—these create the logical structure for inferences
- Construct proof chains: For each answer, trace a clear logical path from passage statements through valid reasoning to your conclusion—if you can't construct this chain, the inference is unsupported
- Watch for hidden assumptions: Valid LSAT inferences require zero additional assumptions—if an answer needs you to assume something unstated, eliminate it immediately
- Distinguish from other question types: Information inferences ask what facts must be true, recognition questions ask what's explicitly stated, and view inferences ask about author beliefs
- Combine information from multiple locations: Many information inferences require synthesizing facts from different paragraphs or (in paired passages) from both passages
- Avoid common logical fallacies: Don't reverse conditionals, assume causation from correlation, confuse necessary with sufficient conditions, or make unwarranted generalizations
- Practice with official materials only: Khan Academy and LSAC PrepTests contain authentic LSAT questions with the precise logical structures you'll encounter on test day
Quick Reference: Valid Inference Formulas
Memorize These Valid Inference Patterns
✓ Modus Ponens:
If \( A \to B \) and \( A \), then \( B \)
Example: If cosmic justice then omniscience. Cosmic justice. Therefore, omniscience.
✓ Modus Tollens:
If \( A \to B \) and \( \neg B \), then \( \neg A \)
Example: If cosmic justice then omniscience. No omniscience. Therefore, no cosmic justice.
✓ Universal Instantiation:
If all \( A \) are \( B \) and \( x \) is \( A \), then \( x \) is \( B \)
Example: All cosmic justice requires omniscience. This system pursues cosmic justice. Therefore, this system requires omniscience.
✓ Contrapositive:
If \( A \to B \), then \( \neg B \to \neg A \) (logically equivalent)
Example: If cosmic justice then omniscience ≡ If no omniscience then no cosmic justice.
Avoid These Invalid Patterns
❌ Affirming Consequent:
If \( A \to B \) and \( B \), then \( A \) ← INVALID
❌ Denying Antecedent:
If \( A \to B \) and \( \neg A \), then \( \neg B \) ← INVALID
❌ Reversing Universal:
All \( A \) are \( B \), therefore all \( B \) are \( A \) ← INVALID
❌ Confusing Necessity/Sufficiency:
Necessary for ≠ Sufficient for ← Check which!
Master LSAT Information Inferences Today
Transform your LSAT Reading Comprehension score by mastering the logical reasoning skills behind information inference questions. Start practicing with official materials and develop the analytical precision essential for law school and legal practice success.