Identify the Principle | Logical Reasoning — Worked Examples | LSAT Prep
Identify the Principle questions are one of the most common and strategically important question types on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section. These questions test your ability to recognize the underlying rule, guideline, or general proposition that justifies the reasoning in an argument. Mastering these questions is essential for achieving a competitive LSAT score, as they appear 1-2 times per Logical Reasoning section and require you to think abstractly about argument structure.
In this comprehensive guide, you'll learn proven strategies, work through official LSAT-style examples with detailed explanations, and develop the critical thinking skills needed to consistently identify principles that support arguments. According to the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), these questions assess your ability to detect patterns of reasoning and recognize the general propositions that underlie specific arguments — crucial skills for legal analysis.
What Are "Identify the Principle" Questions?
Principle questions ask you to identify the general rule, standard, or proposition that justifies or underlies the reasoning in a specific argument. These questions bridge the gap between concrete situations and abstract rules — a fundamental skill in legal reasoning.
Key Characteristics:
- Question stems typically include phrases like "Which principle most helps to justify…", "The reasoning above conforms most closely to which principle…", or "Which principle, if valid, most helps to justify…"
- The stimulus presents a specific argument or situation
- The answer choices present general principles or rules
- You must find the principle that best supports or best describes the reasoning in the argument
Two Main Types of Principle Questions
Type 1: Identify the Principle (Specific to General)
You're given a specific argument in the stimulus and must find a general principle in the answer choices that justifies the reasoning. This is the most common type.
Type 2: Apply the Principle (General to Specific)
You're given a general principle in the stimulus and must find a specific situation in the answer choices that conforms to or illustrates that principle.
This guide focuses on Type 1: Identify the Principle questions, which are more prevalent on the LSAT.
Strategic Approach: 5-Step Method for Identify the Principle Questions
Follow this systematic approach to maximize accuracy and efficiency when tackling principle questions on the LSAT.
1 Read the Question Stem First
Always read the question stem before the stimulus. This tells you what you're looking for and primes your brain for principle identification. Look for keywords like "principle," "justify," "conforms to," or "supports."
2 Identify the Argument Structure
Break down the stimulus into its components:
- Conclusion: What is the author claiming or recommending?
- Evidence/Premises: What facts or reasons support the conclusion?
- Gap/Assumption: What unstated connection links evidence to conclusion?
3 Articulate the Principle in Your Own Words
Before looking at answer choices, formulate the general rule that would justify the argument. Think: "If [general condition], then [general action/conclusion]." This prediction helps you avoid trap answers.
4 Evaluate Each Answer Choice
Test each answer against the argument structure. The correct principle must:
- Cover the key elements of the argument (both evidence and conclusion)
- Be specific enough to apply to this argument
- Be general enough to function as a broader rule
- Justify the reasoning that connects evidence to conclusion
5 Eliminate Wrong Answers Systematically
Eliminate answers that:
- Address irrelevant factors not mentioned in the argument
- Are too narrow or too broad
- Reverse the logical relationship
- Support the wrong conclusion
Worked Example 1: Healthcare Access (Official LSAC Style)
Stimulus:
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.
Question: Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the journalist's reasoning?
- (A) People who are ill deserve more consideration than do healthy people, regardless of their relative socioeconomic positions.
- (B) Wealthy institutions have an obligation to expend at least some of their resources to assist those incapable of assisting themselves.
- (C) Whether one deserves special consideration depends on one's needs rather than on characteristics of the society to which one belongs.
- (D) The people in wealthy nations should not have better access to health care than do the people in poorer nations.
- (E) Unequal access to health care is more unfair than an unequal distribution of wealth.
Detailed Analysis
Step 1: Identify the Argument Structure
- Conclusion: Differential pricing (charging different prices in rich vs. poor nations) is unjustified
- Evidence: Poor nations may have middle-class citizens who can afford drugs, while rich nations have poor citizens who cannot
- Gap: The argument assumes that pricing should be based on individual need, not national wealth
Step 2: Predict the Principle
The underlying principle must be something like: "Assistance or special pricing should be based on individual circumstances/needs, not on group membership or national characteristics."
Step 3: Evaluate Answer Choices
Why (C) is Correct: This answer directly addresses the core reasoning. The journalist argues that pricing based on which nation someone lives in (a "characteristic of the society") is wrong because it ignores individual needs.
Why Others Are Wrong:
- (A): Compares ill vs. healthy people — not relevant to the argument about rich vs. poor nations
- (B): Discusses obligations of wealthy institutions, but doesn't address why nation-based pricing is unjustified
- (D): Too extreme; argues for equal access regardless of ability to pay, which goes beyond the journalist's reasoning
- (E): Compares unfairness of different inequalities — not relevant to the specific criticism of nation-based pricing
Worked Example 2: Formal Poetry (Official LSAC Style)
Stimulus:
Several critics have claimed that any contemporary poet who writes formal poetry — poetry that is rhymed and metered — is performing a politically conservative act. This is plainly false. Consider Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker, two contemporary poets whose poetry is almost exclusively formal and yet who are themselves politically progressive feminists.
Question: The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
- (A) No one who is a feminist is also politically conservative.
- (B) No poet who writes unrhymed or unmetered poetry is politically conservative.
- (C) No one who is politically progressive is capable of performing a politically conservative act.
- (D) Anyone who sometimes writes poetry that is not politically conservative never writes poetry that is politically conservative.
- (E) The content of a poet's work, not the work's form, is the most decisive factor in determining what political consequences, if any, the work will have.
Detailed Analysis
Step 1: Identify the Argument Structure
- Conclusion: It's false that all formal poetry is a politically conservative act
- Evidence: Molly Peacock and Marilyn Hacker write formal poetry AND are politically progressive feminists
- Gap: The argument assumes that politically progressive people cannot perform politically conservative acts
Why (C) is Correct: This is the necessary assumption. The author uses Peacock and Hacker as counterexamples — they're politically progressive, so their formal poetry cannot be a conservative act.
Worked Example 3: Company Responsibility
Stimulus:
A technology company discovered that a software error in its product inadvertently caused data loss for thousands of customers. Although the error was unintentional and occurred despite rigorous testing, the company immediately offered free data recovery services and compensation to all affected users. The CEO stated that this was the right course of action regardless of the company's legal obligations.
Question: Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the company's response?
- (A) Companies should fulfill their legal obligations before considering voluntary actions.
- (B) When a company's actions cause harm, the company has an obligation to remedy that harm even if the actions were unintentional.
- (C) Technology companies should conduct more rigorous testing to prevent software errors.
- (D) Customers who experience data loss should always receive financial compensation.
- (E) Companies should prioritize customer satisfaction over profitability in all circumstances.
Detailed Analysis
Why (B) is Correct: This principle directly justifies the company's response.
Common Traps and How to Avoid Them
Trap 1: The "Too Broad" Principle
Problem: Answer choice states a principle that's too general and doesn't specifically justify the argument's reasoning.
Solution: The correct answer must address the specific relationship between the evidence and conclusion, not just state a vaguely related general rule.
Trap 2: The "Too Narrow" Principle
Problem: Answer choice is so specific that it merely restates the argument without providing a general principle.
Solution: Remember that principles should be generalizable beyond the specific case in the stimulus.
Trap 3: The "Reversal" Principle
Problem: Answer choice reverses the logical relationship in the argument (confusing sufficient and necessary conditions).
Solution: Pay careful attention to the direction of reasoning: which factors lead to which conclusions?
Trap 4: The "Irrelevant Factor" Principle
Problem: Answer choice introduces factors or considerations not present in the argument.
Solution: Stick to the elements explicitly mentioned or implied in the stimulus; don't bring in outside assumptions.
Key Takeaways for Success
- Principles are bridges: They connect specific facts to conclusions through general rules
- Abstract reasoning is crucial: You must move fluidly between concrete situations and abstract principles
- Structure matters more than content: Focus on the logical relationship, not the specific topic
- Pre-phrase when possible: Articulating the principle before seeing answers improves accuracy
- Test answer choices rigorously: The correct answer must justify ALL key aspects of the reasoning
- Logical consistency is paramount: The principle must align with both the evidence and the conclusion
Frequently Asked Questions
Principle science typically appears 1-2 times per Logical Reasoning section. Since the current LSAT format includes two Logical Reasoning sections (as of August 2024), you can expect to encounter 2-4 principle questions on your test.
Assumption questions ask you to identify what the argument takes for granted — an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to work. Principle questions ask you to identify a general rule that justifies or describes the reasoning.
No — principle questions should take approximately the same time as other Logical Reasoning questions (about 1-1.5 minutes on average).
Principle questions have a moderate difficulty level on average. They're generally considered more challenging than Main Point or Role of Statement questions but less difficult than some Parallel Reasoning or complex Strengthening questions.
While the digital LSAT allows you to flag questions and return to them, it's generally not advisable to routinely skip principle questions unless you're completely stuck.
No. According to LSAC, the LSAT does not require specialized knowledge of formal logic terminology. However, understanding basic concepts like argument, premise, conclusion, assumption, and conditional reasoning (if-then relationships) is essential.
Develop abstract thinking through deliberate practice: articulate the underlying principle in your own words before viewing answers, translate arguments into general “If X, then Y” statements, and practice consistently with official materials.
Official LSAT Preparation Resources
To master Identify the Principle questions and all other LSAT question types, use these official resources from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC):
Final Thought: Identify the Principle questions test a fundamental skill for legal reasoning — the ability to recognize general rules that govern specific situations.