LSAT Logical Reasoning: Match Principles — Worked Examples
Master Match Principles questions with comprehensive strategies, official examples, and expert techniques for LSAT success
Understanding Match Principles Questions
Match Principles questions are a critical component of the LSAT Logical Reasoning section, appearing in approximately 10-15% of all Logical Reasoning questions. These questions test your ability to identify abstract general principles that either justify an argument's reasoning or conform to the pattern of reasoning presented.
Unlike other question types that focus on flaws or assumptions, Match Principles questions require you to recognize the underlying logical structure of an argument and match it to a broader, more abstract rule. Success depends on your ability to generalize from specific cases while maintaining the precise logical relationship between premises and conclusions.
⚠️ Key Distinction: Match Principles questions come in two main varieties: Principle-Justify (find a principle that makes the conclusion follow) and Match-Criterion/Conform (find a principle that mirrors the existing reasoning).
Identifying Match Principles Questions
Common Question Stems
"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning?"
"Which one of the following principles most closely conforms to the reasoning above?"
"The reasoning above most closely conforms to which of the following principles?"
"Which of the following judgments best illustrates the principle stated above?"
Two Main Types
1. Principle-Justify Questions
These questions ask you to find a general principle that, if accepted as true, would make the argument's conclusion logically follow from its premises. The correct principle bridges the gap between evidence and conclusion.
Strategy: Identify the logical gap in the argument, then find the principle that fills this gap without going too far beyond what's needed.
2. Match-Criterion (Conform) Questions
These questions ask you to identify which abstract principle most closely matches or mirrors the reasoning pattern already present in the argument. You're not filling a gap but rather describing the rule the argument follows.
Strategy: Abstract the specific situation into a general rule that captures the same logical structure and degree of strictness.
Worked Example 1: Principle-Justify Question
Official LSAC Question — Pharmaceutical Pricing
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?
Answer Choices
(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.
📊 Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1: Identify the Argument Structure
Premise: Pharmaceutical companies price drugs differently based on national wealth (rich nations pay more, poor nations pay less).
Counterpoint: Poor nations may have wealthy citizens who can afford high prices, while rich nations may have poor citizens who cannot.
Conclusion: The practice of pricing by national wealth is unjustified.
Step 2: Identify the Logical Gap
The argument assumes that pricing should be based on individual need/ability to pay rather than national characteristics. We need a principle that bridges this gap.
Step 3: Predict the Principle
We need a principle stating: "Special consideration should be based on individual circumstances, not group characteristics."
Step 4: Evaluate Answer Choices
(A) Incorrect: Compares ill vs. healthy people—not relevant to the pricing by nation issue.
(B) Incorrect: Discusses obligations of wealthy institutions, not the basis for pricing decisions.
✓ (C) CORRECT: Directly states that consideration should depend on individual needs, not societal characteristics. This perfectly justifies the journalist's critique that pricing by national wealth is inappropriate.
(D) Incorrect: Too broad and introduces equality between nations—not the journalist's argument.
(E) Incorrect: Compares types of unfairness—irrelevant to the specific pricing practice.
✓ Correct Answer: (C)
This principle perfectly bridges the gap by establishing that individual needs, not national characteristics, should determine special consideration. It directly supports the journalist's conclusion that pricing by national wealth is unjustified.
Worked Example 2: Match-Criterion Question
Official LSAC Question — Formal Poetry
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?
Answer Choices
(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.
📊 Step-by-Step Solution
Step 1: Identify the Argument Structure
Critics' Claim: Writing formal poetry = politically conservative act
Evidence: Peacock and Hacker write formal poetry but are politically progressive feminists
Conclusion: The critics' claim is false
Step 2: Identify What Makes the Logic Work
The argument uses counterexamples (progressive people doing the supposedly "conservative" act) to refute the claim. For this to work, we must assume that politically progressive people cannot perform politically conservative acts. Otherwise, Peacock and Hacker could be progressive people performing conservative acts, which wouldn't refute the critics.
Step 3: Apply Formal Logic
The argument structure can be formalized as:
Critics claim: Formal poetry → Conservative act
Evidence: Peacock & Hacker are progressive AND write formal poetry
Hidden assumption needed: Progressive people → Cannot do conservative acts
Therefore: Formal poetry ≠ Conservative act (critics are wrong)
Step 4: Evaluate Answer Choices
(A) Incorrect: Being a feminist ≠ being progressive. Also, this doesn't address the core logical gap about acts vs. identity.
(B) Incorrect: Discusses different poets, not the relationship between political identity and acts.
✓ (C) CORRECT: This assumption is necessary for the argument to work. If progressive people could perform conservative acts, then the evidence wouldn't refute the critics' claim.
(D) Incorrect: Too specific about poetry mixing—doesn't address the general principle needed.
(E) Incorrect: While possibly true, this doesn't provide the logical bridge the argument requires.
✓ Correct Answer: (C)
The principle that politically progressive people cannot perform politically conservative acts is the necessary assumption that allows the argument to use progressive poets as counterexamples to refute the critics' claim.
Comprehensive Strategy for Match Principles Questions
🎯 Pre-Reading Strategy
- Read the question stem first to identify whether it's justify or conform type
- Note any specific constraints mentioned in the question
- Keep the question type in mind while reading the stimulus
📖 Active Reading Technique
- Identify premises and conclusion clearly
- Look for the logical relationship between parts
- Note any conditional relationships (if-then)
- Spot the reasoning pattern or gap
🔍 Abstraction Process
- Remove specific details and names
- Generalize the situation to a broader rule
- Maintain the logical structure exactly
- Formulate your prediction in abstract terms
⚡ The Five-Second Principle Test
Before selecting an answer, verify it passes ALL these criteria:
✓ Covers all elements of the argument without omission
✓ Proper scope: Not too broad, not too narrow
✓ No new assumptions beyond the argument's logic
✓ Maintains direction: Doesn't reverse the logic
✓ Sufficient strength: Actually justifies or matches the reasoning
⚠️ Common Traps and How to Avoid Them
1. The "Too Broad" Trap
Problem: The principle applies to many situations beyond the scope of the argument.
Solution: The correct principle should be general but targeted—it shouldn't extend to unrelated scenarios or include elements not present in the argument.
2. The "Too Narrow" Trap
Problem: The principle is so specific that it only applies to the exact situation described, not as a general rule.
Solution: Remember that principles are general rules. If an answer choice just restates the specific facts of the argument, it's too narrow.
3. The "Reversed Logic" Trap
Problem: The principle switches the direction of the logical relationship (e.g., "If A then B" becomes "If B then A").
Solution: Pay careful attention to conditional logic. The principle must maintain the same directional relationship as the argument.
4. The "Partial Match" Trap
Problem: The principle addresses only part of the argument while ignoring crucial elements.
Solution: Ensure your chosen principle accounts for ALL key components of the argument—premises, conclusion, and their relationship.
5. The "Irrelevant Principle" Trap
Problem: The principle sounds good and may even be true, but it doesn't connect to the argument's specific reasoning.
Solution: Always test the principle directly against the argument. If it doesn't specifically justify or match the reasoning, eliminate it.
💡 Advanced Practice Techniques
Drill-Specific Practice
- Abstraction Exercises: Take 10 LSAT arguments and practice writing out the underlying principle in your own words before looking at answer choices.
- Reverse Engineering: Start with a principle from a correct answer and create your own argument that would be justified by that principle.
- Wrong Answer Analysis: For each incorrect answer, write a brief explanation of why it fails (too broad, too narrow, reversed, etc.).
- Timed Drills: Set a timer for 1 minute 20 seconds per question—this is your target pace for Logical Reasoning questions.
- Conditional Logic Practice: Focus on questions with "if-then" structures to strengthen your ability to track logical relationships.
Building Pattern Recognition
Common Principle Patterns in LSAT Questions:
Needs-Based Allocation: Resources should be distributed based on need rather than other criteria
Responsibility Correlation: Those who benefit/cause should bear responsibility/costs
Consistency Principle: Similar cases should be treated similarly
Qualification Requirement: Certain qualifications must be met before taking action
Proportionality: Actions should be proportional to circumstances
Exception Handling: General rules may have justified exceptions under specific conditions
Study Schedule Recommendations
📅 Week 1-2: Foundation
Study principle question theory, work through 20-25 untimed questions, focus on understanding rather than speed
📅 Week 3-4: Application
Complete 40-50 timed questions, begin identifying your personal weak points, review all incorrect answers thoroughly
📅 Week 5-6: Mastery
Mix principle questions with other LR types, take full-length practice tests, target 85%+ accuracy rate
📚 Official LSAT Resources
Primary Official Resources
🌐 LSAC LawHub (Official Platform)
Access over 90+ official LSAT PrepTests, including all logical reasoning sections with Match Principles questions. This is the gold standard for LSAT preparation.
📖 Official LSAT Sample Questions
Free sample questions directly from LSAC, including logical reasoning questions with detailed explanations. Perfect for getting started.
🎓 Khan Academy LSAT Prep (Free)
Free comprehensive LSAT prep in partnership with LSAC, including dedicated lessons on Match Principles questions with practice exercises.
💡 Pro Tip: Always prioritize official LSAC materials over third-party resources. The question styles, difficulty levels, and logical structures in official materials most accurately reflect what you'll see on test day.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How many Match Principles questions appear on each LSAT?
A: The LSAT typically includes 2-4 Match Principles questions per Logical Reasoning section. Since there's one scored LR section, expect approximately 2-4 of these questions per test, representing about 8-15% of all LR questions.
Q: Are Match Principles questions typically harder than other LR question types?
A: Match Principles questions tend to be moderate to difficult, with difficulty varying based on the complexity of the argument structure and the similarity between answer choices. They require strong abstraction skills, which many test-takers find challenging. However, with practice, they become highly predictable.
Q: Should I memorize common principles?
A: While recognizing common principle patterns (like needs-based allocation or responsibility correlation) can speed up your analysis, don't rely on memorization. The LSAT tests your ability to identify logical structures in novel situations. Focus on developing your abstraction and pattern-recognition skills rather than memorizing specific principles.
Q: What's the difference between Principle questions and Parallel Reasoning questions?
A: Principle questions ask you to find an abstract rule that justifies or matches the reasoning. Parallel Reasoning questions ask you to find an argument with the same logical structure, but the answer will be another specific argument, not an abstract principle. Parallel questions focus on form; Principle questions focus on underlying rules.
Q: How do I improve my speed on Match Principles questions?
A: Speed comes from pattern recognition and prediction. Practice abstracting the principle before looking at answer choices. This helps you quickly eliminate wrong answers. Additionally, learn to identify question type instantly from the stem, and develop shortcuts for common logical structures (if-then relationships, needs-based arguments, etc.).
Q: Can I skip these questions and focus on other LR types?
A: This is not recommended. Match Principles questions, while comprising a smaller percentage, are consistent across LSATs. More importantly, the skills you develop for these questions—abstract thinking, pattern recognition, logical structure analysis—transfer directly to other question types like Assumption, Strengthen/Weaken, and Flaw questions. Mastering Match Principles improves your overall LR performance.
📋 Quick Reference Cheat Sheet
The 6-Step Match Principles Method
1️⃣ Read Question First
Identify if it's Justify or Conform type
2️⃣ Map the Argument
Identify premises, conclusion, and gaps
3️⃣ Abstract the Logic
Remove specifics, generalize to rule
4️⃣ Predict Answer
Formulate principle before reading choices
5️⃣ Eliminate Fast
Remove obviously wrong answers quickly
6️⃣ Verify Match
Ensure complete coverage, proper scope
⏱️ Time Management Target
Allocate 1:20 - 1:40 per Match Principles question
(Slightly longer than average LR questions due to abstraction required)
🎯 Final Success Tips
✅ Practice with Official Tests
Use only official LSAC PrepTests for the most accurate practice. Third-party questions often don't capture the nuances of real LSAT questions.
✅ Review Every Answer
Don't just review wrong answers—understand why correct answers work and why wrong answers fail. This builds pattern recognition faster.
✅ Master Conditional Logic
Many Match Principles questions involve if-then relationships. Solid understanding of conditional logic is essential for consistent accuracy.
✅ Trust the Process
Improvement on these questions takes time. With consistent practice using the strategies outlined here, most students see significant improvement within 4-6 weeks.
🚀 Ready to Excel?
Apply these strategies consistently, practice with official materials, and watch your Match Principles accuracy soar. Remember: the LSAT rewards careful thinking and systematic approach over speed. Quality practice beats quantity every time.