LSAT Prep

Point at Issue Questions LSAT | Resolve Conflict Strategy Guide

3 days ago
21 mins
15 Views
Master LSAT Point at Issue and Disagreement questions with the Agreement Test, speaker analysis techniques, and expert strategies. Complete guide to identifying conflicts between speakers for LSAT success.

Point at Issue Questions in LSAT Logical Reasoning: Resolve Conflict Mastery Guide

Point at Issue questions—also known as "Disagreement," "Dispute," or "Resolve a Conflict" questions—represent approximately 5-7% of all LSAT Logical Reasoning questions (roughly 2-3 questions per test). These distinctive questions present you with two speakers who express different viewpoints, and your task is to identify the specific statement over which they disagree. Unlike most LR questions that analyze a single argument, Point at Issue questions require you to carefully compare two positions, identify areas of overlap, and pinpoint exactly where the speakers hold opposing views. Mastering these questions demonstrates your ability to parse dialogue, identify conflicting viewpoints, and recognize the precise nature of disagreements—essential skills for legal practice, where understanding opposing arguments, client-attorney discussions, and courtroom debates is fundamental to effective advocacy and negotiation.

What Are Point at Issue Questions?

A Point at Issue question presents you with two speakers (often labeled Speaker A and Speaker B, or given names like "Patricia" and "James") who make statements that disagree on some point. Your job is to identify which answer choice represents a statement about which one speaker would say "yes, I agree with that" while the other would say "no, I disagree with that."

Core Definition: Point at Issue questions ask you to identify a statement on which the two speakers hold directly opposing views. The correct answer must be something that ONE speaker explicitly or implicitly agrees with AND the OTHER speaker explicitly or implicitly disagrees with. Both speakers must have a clear, identifiable position on the statement—if either speaker's stance is unclear or unknown, that answer is wrong. Think of it as finding the exact fault line where the two positions split: not a general topic they discuss, but a specific claim they would evaluate differently.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) designs these questions to test your ability to analyze comparative arguments, identify precise points of contention, and distinguish between what speakers actually commit to versus what you might infer they believe—critical skills for understanding opposing legal positions, client negotiations, and adversarial proceedings in legal practice.

Recognizing Point at Issue Questions

Identifying Point at Issue questions is straightforward—they use distinctive phrasing that explicitly references disagreement or dispute between speakers. Look for these key phrases:

  • "[Speaker A] and [Speaker B] disagree over whether..."
  • "The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that [Speaker A] and [Speaker B] disagree about which one of the following?"
  • "Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between [Speaker A] and [Speaker B]?"
  • "On the basis of their statements, [Speaker A] and [Speaker B] are committed to disagreeing about whether..."
  • "The statements above provide the most support for holding that [Speaker A] and [Speaker B] would disagree with each other about which one of the following?"
  • "[Speaker A] and [Speaker B] disagree over the truth of which one of the following statements?"

The key indicators are "disagree," "point at issue," "dispute," "committed to disagreeing," combined with references to two speakers or names. The presence of a dialogue or two-speaker format is your clearest signal that you're dealing with a Point at Issue question.

Point at Issue vs. Other Dialogue Question Types

Understanding how Point at Issue questions differ from related question types ensures you apply the correct analytical approach.

AspectPoint at IssuePoint of AgreementStrengthen/Weaken One Speaker
What It AsksWhat do the speakers DISAGREE about?What do the speakers AGREE about?What strengthens/weakens ONE speaker's argument?
Answer Pattern RequiredSpeaker A: AGREE | Speaker B: DISAGREE (or vice versa)Speaker A: AGREE | Speaker B: AGREEOnly one speaker's position matters
Key Phrase"disagree," "point at issue," "dispute""agree," "point of agreement," "both accept""strengthens [Speaker A's] position," "supports [Speaker B]"
Both Speakers Must CommitYES—both must have clear opposing positionsYES—both must have clear aligned positionsNO—only the specified speaker matters
Common Wrong AnswerOnly ONE speaker addresses the topic, OR both AGREE on itOnly ONE speaker addresses it, OR they DISAGREE on itOut of scope or affects wrong speaker
Test to ApplyThe AGREEMENT TEST: Ask what each speaker thinks about the statementThe AGREEMENT TEST: Verify both would say "yes"Standard strengthen/weaken analysis for one argument
Critical Distinction: In Point at Issue questions, BOTH speakers must have a clear position on the correct answer. If Speaker A clearly disagrees with a statement but Speaker B never addresses that topic or takes no identifiable stance on it, that answer is WRONG—even if it's something Speaker A talks about extensively. The disagreement must be EXPLICIT or CLEARLY IMPLIED for both parties, not assumed or inferred beyond what they actually say.

The Agreement Test: Your Essential Tool

The Agreement Test is the specialized technique for evaluating answer choices in Point at Issue questions. It's your most powerful tool for systematically identifying the correct answer and eliminating wrong answers.

Agreement Test Formula:

For each answer choice, ask TWO questions:

Question 1: What does Speaker A think about this statement?

(Agree / Disagree / Unclear)

Question 2: What does Speaker B think about this statement?

(Agree / Disagree / Unclear)

→ CORRECT ANSWER: One agrees, one disagrees

→ WRONG ANSWER: Both agree, both disagree, or either is unclear

How the Agreement Test Works

The Agreement Test requires you to systematically check each speaker's position on every answer choice. This prevents you from making assumptions or falling for trap answers.

Step-by-Step Agreement Test Process:

  1. Read the answer choice carefully and make sure you understand the specific claim being made
  2. Go back to Speaker A's statements: Based on what Speaker A actually said (not what you think they might believe), would Speaker A agree or disagree with this statement? Mark: AGREE, DISAGREE, or UNCLEAR
  3. Go back to Speaker B's statements: Based on what Speaker B actually said, would Speaker B agree or disagree with this statement? Mark: AGREE, DISAGREE, or UNCLEAR
  4. Compare the results:
    • If one AGREES and one DISAGREES → This is a point of disagreement. Strong contender! ✓
    • If both AGREE → This is a point of agreement, not disagreement. Eliminate. ✗
    • If both DISAGREE → They agree that it's false, so no disagreement. Eliminate. ✗
    • If either is UNCLEAR → We can't confirm a disagreement. Eliminate. ✗
  5. Select the answer where the test shows clear opposing positions

Agreement Test Example

Sample Dialogue

Maria:

"The city should invest in light rail public transportation. Studies show that cities with extensive public transit have less traffic congestion and lower pollution levels. Building a light rail system would reduce the number of cars on our roads."

James:

"I disagree. While public transit might reduce some car traffic, light rail is extremely expensive to build and maintain. The city's budget would be better spent improving existing bus routes, which can be expanded much more cost-effectively and serve more neighborhoods."

Question: Maria and James disagree over whether...

Answer Choice to Test:

(A) "The city should invest in some form of public transportation."

Applying the Agreement Test:

Maria's Position:

AGREE ✓

Maria explicitly advocates for investing in light rail (which is public transportation).
James's Position:

AGREE ✓

James suggests spending the budget on improving bus routes (also public transportation). He supports public transit investment—just not light rail specifically.

Result: BOTH AGREE. This is NOT a point of disagreement. They both support public transportation investment—they just disagree about which TYPE (light rail vs. buses). Eliminate this answer. ✗

Answer Choice to Test:

(B) "Light rail public transportation would be an effective way to reduce traffic congestion in the city."

Applying the Agreement Test:

Maria's Position:

AGREE ✓

Maria states that building light rail "would reduce the number of cars on our roads" and cites studies showing transit reduces congestion. She clearly believes light rail would be effective for this purpose.
James's Position:

UNCLEAR ❓

James says light rail is too expensive and buses are better, but he never directly addresses whether light rail would be EFFECTIVE at reducing congestion. He concedes "public transit might reduce some car traffic" but doesn't commit to light rail specifically being effective or ineffective.

Result: Maria agrees, but James's position is UNCLEAR. We cannot confirm they disagree on this specific point because James doesn't commit to a position on light rail's effectiveness—he only talks about cost. Eliminate this answer. ✗

Answer Choice to Test:

(C) "The city's financial resources should be used for light rail rather than for improving existing bus routes."

Applying the Agreement Test:

Maria's Position:

AGREE ✓

Maria advocates for investing in light rail. While she doesn't explicitly mention buses, her argument clearly supports prioritizing light rail investment.
James's Position:

DISAGREE ✗

James explicitly states "the city's budget would be better spent improving existing bus routes" rather than building light rail. He directly opposes this statement.

Result: Maria AGREES, James DISAGREES. This is a clear point of disagreement! This is likely the CORRECT answer. ✓✓

The Five-Step Strategy for Point at Issue Questions

1Confirm the Question Type

Read the question stem carefully and confirm you're dealing with a Point at Issue question by looking for "disagree," "point at issue," or "dispute" language referencing two speakers. This activates your comparative analysis mindset—you're looking for opposing positions, not evaluating a single argument.

Mindset Shift: Don't evaluate whether either speaker's argument is strong or weak. Don't try to determine who's "right." Your only job is to identify where they hold opposing views. Both speakers' positions should be treated as their genuine beliefs—you're just comparing them, not judging them.

2Read Speaker A's Statement Carefully

Read the first speaker's statement and identify their main claims, sub-conclusions, premises, and any supporting evidence. Note what they EXPLICITLY commit to—what claims they make, what they believe, what they argue for or against.

Key things to identify:

  • What is Speaker A arguing FOR? (Their main conclusion or position)
  • What supporting claims does Speaker A make? (Premises, evidence, sub-conclusions)
  • What does Speaker A explicitly reject or disagree with? (If anything)
  • What assumptions or implications are clear from Speaker A's statements? (Only obvious logical implications, not speculative inferences)

Don't make assumptions about what Speaker A might believe beyond what they actually say or clearly imply. Stick to what's stated or logically necessary from their statements.

3Read Speaker B's Response and Identify Overlapping Topics

Read the second speaker's statement with special attention to how they respond to Speaker A. Often (but not always), Speaker B will explicitly indicate disagreement with phrases like "I disagree," "That's not true," "On the contrary," or "However."

Identify the overlap: Where do the two speakers discuss the same topic or related issues? The disagreement must occur in an area that BOTH speakers address. Mark the common ground—the shared subject matter where their views diverge.

Pro Tip: The disagreement doesn't have to be about Speaker A's main conclusion. Often they disagree about a premise, a piece of reasoning, an assumption, or even a side point. Don't assume the disagreement is always about the "big picture" conclusion.

4Predict the Likely Area of Disagreement

Before looking at answer choices, identify where you think the speakers disagree. This helps you recognize the correct answer and avoid tempting wrong answers.

Ask yourself:

  • "What specific claim does Speaker B reject from Speaker A's argument?"
  • "On what point do their views clearly conflict?"
  • "What statement would one affirm and the other deny?"

Write down or mentally articulate your prediction. Even if your exact wording doesn't match an answer choice, having a clear sense of the disagreement area dramatically improves your accuracy and speed.

Example prediction: "They disagree about whether X is more important than Y" or "They disagree about whether action Z would produce result W."

5Apply the Agreement Test to Each Answer Choice

For every answer choice, systematically apply the Agreement Test: determine what Speaker A thinks about the statement, determine what Speaker B thinks about it, and check if they hold opposing views.

Systematic Approach:

  1. Read the answer choice
  2. Check Speaker A: Agree / Disagree / Unclear?
  3. Check Speaker B: Agree / Disagree / Unclear?
  4. Evaluate: If one agrees and one disagrees, it's correct. Otherwise, eliminate.

The correct answer will have clear opposing positions from both speakers. If you find yourself having to make assumptions about what a speaker "probably believes" or "would likely think," that answer is likely wrong—correct answers should have positions that are stated or obviously implied.

Common Patterns in Point at Issue Questions

Pattern 1: Speaker B Explicitly Disagrees

Structure: Speaker B begins with an explicit disagreement marker like "I disagree," "That's incorrect," "On the contrary," or "No."

Example:

Tom:

"Remote work increases employee productivity because workers can focus without office distractions and interruptions."

Sarah:

"I disagree. While remote work eliminates some distractions, many employees struggle with home distractions like family members, household chores, and inadequate workspace setup. For most workers, productivity actually decreases when working remotely."

Likely Disagreement: Whether remote work increases productivity for most employees. Tom says yes, Sarah says no.

Strategy Tip: When you see explicit disagreement markers, pay close attention to WHAT SPECIFICALLY is being rejected. Sometimes Speaker B might say "I disagree" but actually only disagree with a premise or reason, not the main conclusion.

Pattern 2: Implicit Disagreement Through Contradiction

Structure: Speaker B doesn't explicitly say "I disagree" but makes claims that directly contradict Speaker A's position.

Example:

Rachel:

"Classical music education should be mandatory in elementary schools. Exposure to classical music has been shown to improve children's spatial reasoning and mathematical abilities."

David:

"While music education has benefits, schools should allow students to explore diverse musical genres. Rock, jazz, and world music can develop cultural awareness and creativity just as effectively as classical music, and students are more likely to engage with contemporary forms."

Likely Disagreement: Whether classical music specifically should be mandatory (Rachel says yes; David implies no—he thinks diverse genres should be offered instead). They might AGREE that music education is valuable, but disagree about classical music being mandatory.

Strategy Tip: Look for contradictory implications even without explicit disagreement language. When Speaker B offers an alternative or says "should do Y instead of X," they're often disagreeing with Speaker A's proposal even without saying "I disagree."

Pattern 3: Agreement on Conclusion, Disagreement on Reasoning

Structure: Both speakers may reach similar conclusions or recommendations but for completely different reasons or based on different premises.

Example:

Elena:

"The museum should expand its modern art collection. Modern art attracts younger visitors, and museums need to appeal to younger demographics to remain financially viable."

Marcus:

"The museum should expand its modern art collection. Modern art movements represent important historical and cultural developments of the 20th century, and educational institutions have an obligation to preserve and display historically significant works."

Likely Disagreement: Whether the primary reason to expand modern art is to attract younger visitors (Elena's view) or to fulfill educational/preservation obligations (Marcus's view). They might also disagree about whether financial viability should drive collection decisions.

Strategy Tip: Don't assume speakers agree just because they support the same action or reach the same conclusion. The disagreement might be about WHY that action is justified, what premises support it, or what the underlying principles are.

Common Trap Answer Types

Trap 1: Only One Speaker Addresses the Topic

What it is: An answer choice about which only ONE speaker makes a clear statement, while the other speaker never addresses that specific point.

Why it's tempting: If Speaker A talks extensively about a topic and Speaker B seems to contradict the overall thrust of Speaker A's argument, you might assume they disagree about everything Speaker A mentions—but that's not true.

How to avoid it: Always apply the Agreement Test to BOTH speakers. If you find yourself thinking "Well, Speaker B probably believes..." or "Speaker B would likely think..." then Speaker B hasn't actually committed to a position. Eliminate that answer.

Example:

Alex:

"We should ban single-use plastics. Plastic pollution is destroying marine ecosystems, and sea turtles are ingesting plastic bags thinking they're jellyfish."

Jordan:

"Banning single-use plastics is too extreme. We should focus on improving recycling infrastructure and incentivizing reusable alternatives."

Trap answer: "Sea turtles are being harmed by plastic pollution."

Why it's wrong: Alex clearly agrees with this statement (explicitly mentions it). But Jordan never addresses sea turtles or marine life at all—Jordan only discusses policy approaches to plastics. We can't determine Jordan's view on sea turtle harm. Since Jordan's position is UNCLEAR, this can't be the point of disagreement. ✗

Trap 2: Both Speakers Agree

What it is: An answer choice that both speakers would accept or affirm, even though they disagree about other things.

Why it's tempting: The answer might be topically relevant to their discussion and seem important to their disagreement—but if they both hold the same view on it, it's not their point of disagreement.

How to avoid it: When applying the Agreement Test, if you find that both speakers AGREE with a statement, immediately eliminate it—even if it seems central to the discussion. You're looking for opposing positions, not shared ground.

Example:

Lisa:

"Our company should allow employees to work four 10-hour days instead of five 8-hour days. Longer weekends improve work-life balance and reduce commuting time and costs."

Michael:

"While work-life balance is important, four 10-hour days would exhaust employees, reducing their productivity in the later hours of each day. The traditional five-day schedule distributes work more sustainably."

Trap answer: "Work-life balance is important for employees."

Why it's wrong: Lisa explicitly states that improving work-life balance is a benefit of her proposal (agrees). Michael begins by acknowledging "work-life balance is important" (agrees). BOTH AGREE that work-life balance matters. They disagree about which schedule better achieves it, not about whether it's important. ✗

Trap 3: Both Speakers Disagree (Both Reject the Statement)

What it is: An answer choice that both speakers would reject or consider false.

Why it's tricky: This is less common than the previous traps but can catch you off guard. If both speakers disagree with a statement, they're actually IN AGREEMENT that it's false—so there's no disagreement between them about it.

How to avoid it: Remember the Agreement Test looks for OPPOSING views, not just disagreement with a statement. If both speakers say "no" to an answer choice, they agree it's false, which means they don't disagree with each other about it.

Example:

Nina:

"We should invest in solar energy because it's renewable and reduces carbon emissions. Fossil fuels contribute to climate change and must be phased out."

Omar:

"Solar energy is promising, but we should also invest heavily in nuclear power, which provides reliable baseload power without carbon emissions. A diversified clean energy approach is best."

Trap answer: "Fossil fuels should remain the primary energy source."

Why it's wrong: Nina explicitly wants to phase out fossil fuels (disagrees with this statement). Omar advocates for clean energy alternatives like solar and nuclear instead of fossil fuels (also disagrees with this statement). BOTH DISAGREE with the answer choice, meaning they're IN AGREEMENT that fossil fuels shouldn't be primary. No disagreement between them on this point. ✗

Trap 4: Too General or Too Specific

What it is: An answer that either overgeneralizes the speakers' positions or gets too specific about details they didn't actually commit to.

Why it's tempting: It seems related to what they discussed, but it subtly shifts the language in ways that one or both speakers didn't actually support.

How to avoid it: Pay careful attention to the exact wording of answer choices. Be cautious of:

  • Absolute language (always, never, all, none) when speakers used qualified language (sometimes, often, many, most)
  • Overly broad statements when speakers discussed specific contexts
  • Overly specific details that go beyond what speakers said

Example:

Carol:

"High schools should teach financial literacy courses. Many young adults graduate without understanding budgeting, credit, or investing."

Daniel:

"Financial literacy is important, but it should be integrated into existing math courses rather than offered as a separate class. Adding more required courses burdens students' schedules."

Trap answer (Too specific): "Financial literacy should be taught in every grade from kindergarten through 12th grade as a standalone course."

Why it's wrong: This is too specific. Carol advocated for financial literacy in "high schools" (not K-12) and didn't specify it must be standalone (though she implied it). Daniel opposes standalone courses but never addressed the K-12 span. The specificity goes beyond what either committed to. ✗

Trap answer (Too general): "Young people should learn about financial matters."

Why it's wrong: This is too broad. Both speakers would likely AGREE with this general statement—Carol says it should be in high school, Daniel says it should be integrated into math. They agree young people should learn it; they disagree about HOW and WHERE. ✗

Trap 5: Restating One Speaker's Words Without Actual Disagreement

What it is: An answer that closely restates something one speaker said, making it seem relevant, but the other speaker didn't actually address or contradict that specific point.

Why it's tempting: You recognize the language from the stimulus and think "Yes, that's what Speaker A said!" But relevance to Speaker A isn't enough—Speaker B must take an opposing position.

How to avoid it: Don't select an answer just because it accurately captures one speaker's view. Verify that the OTHER speaker has clearly addressed that same point with an opposing view. Many wrong answers are TRUE statements that one speaker would affirm but that the other speaker never discussed.

Worked Example with Complete Analysis

Sample Question

Priya:

"Universities should eliminate standardized test requirements for admissions. Studies show that standardized test scores correlate more strongly with family income than with academic potential, making them unfair barriers for low-income students. Grade point averages and extracurricular achievements better reflect a student's ability to succeed in college."

Jamal:

"While standardized tests aren't perfect predictors of college success, they provide a consistent benchmark that allows admissions officers to compare students from different schools with different grading standards. Without standardized tests, admissions would rely even more heavily on subjective factors that could disadvantage students from less prestigious high schools."

Question: "Priya and Jamal disagree over whether..."

Step-by-Step Solution

Step 1 - Confirm Question Type: This is a Point at Issue question—"Priya and Jamal disagree over whether." I need to find a statement where they hold opposing views.

Step 2 - Analyze Speaker A (Priya):

  • Main position: Universities should eliminate standardized test requirements
  • Reasoning: Tests correlate with family income, not academic potential; they're unfair to low-income students; GPAs and extracurriculars are better predictors
  • What Priya commits to: Standardized tests are unfair; they should be eliminated; other factors better measure college success potential

Step 3 - Analyze Speaker B (Jamal) and Identify Overlap:

  • Main position: Standardized tests should be kept (despite imperfections)
  • Reasoning: Tests provide consistent benchmarks; they help compare students from different schools; without them, admissions would become more subjective and potentially more unfair
  • What Jamal commits to: Tests aren't perfect but serve an important function; eliminating them would create bigger problems; they're necessary for fair comparison
  • Overlap: Both discuss standardized testing in admissions, fairness/unfairness, and how to best evaluate students

Step 4 - Predict the Disagreement: They likely disagree about whether standardized tests should be eliminated from admissions (Priya: yes, Jamal: no) and/or whether standardized tests help or hurt fairness (Priya: hurt, Jamal: help).

Evaluating Answer Choices with the Agreement Test

(A) "Standardized test scores correlate with family income."

Priya: AGREE ✓
Explicitly states this
Jamal: UNCLEAR ❓
Never addresses this point

Result: Priya has a clear position, but Jamal never discusses whether tests correlate with income. We don't know if Jamal agrees or disagrees. Since one speaker's position is unclear, this can't be the point of disagreement. Eliminate. ✗

(B) "Grade point averages better reflect students' potential for college success than standardized test scores do."

Priya: AGREE ✓
States GPAs "better reflect" ability to succeed
Jamal: UNCLEAR ❓
Defends tests but doesn't compare their predictive value to GPAs'

Result: Priya explicitly agrees. Jamal defends keeping tests but never addresses whether GPAs are better predictors. He focuses on tests providing a "consistent benchmark," not on which metric is the best predictor. Unclear position. Eliminate. ✗

(C) "Standardized tests are not perfect predictors of college success."

Priya: AGREE ✓
Argues tests are unfair and other factors are better
Jamal: AGREE ✓
Begins with "standardized tests aren't perfect predictors"

Result: BOTH AGREE that tests aren't perfect predictors. This is common ground, not a point of disagreement. They agree on the imperfection; they disagree about what to do about it. Eliminate. ✗

(D) "Eliminating standardized test requirements would make university admissions less fair."

Priya: DISAGREE ✗
Argues eliminating tests would make admissions MORE fair (removing unfair barriers for low-income students)
Jamal: AGREE ✓
States that without tests, admissions "would rely even more heavily on subjective factors that could disadvantage students"—implying elimination would make it less fair

Result: Priya DISAGREES (thinks elimination increases fairness), Jamal AGREES (thinks elimination decreases fairness). This is a clear point of disagreement! Strong contender. ✓✓

(E) "Universities should use multiple factors, including both standardized tests and grade point averages, when making admissions decisions."

Priya: DISAGREE ✗
Wants to eliminate tests, not use them alongside other factors
Jamal: UNCLEAR ❓
Supports keeping tests but doesn't explicitly address whether multiple factors should be used together

Result: Priya clearly disagrees (wants tests eliminated entirely). Jamal's position is less clear—he defends tests but doesn't explicitly state whether they should be the only factor or one of multiple factors. His argument suggests tests should be kept, but he doesn't commit to a multi-factor approach explicitly. This is less clear than answer (D). ✗

Correct Answer: (D)

Why it's correct: Answer (D) perfectly captures the core disagreement. Priya believes eliminating standardized tests would INCREASE fairness (by removing barriers that disadvantage low-income students), while Jamal believes eliminating tests would DECREASE fairness (by making admissions more subjective and potentially disadvantaging students from less prestigious schools). Both speakers have clear, stated positions on this issue, and their positions are directly opposed. Priya thinks elimination helps fairness; Jamal thinks elimination hurts fairness. This is the precise point at which their views diverge, making it the correct answer.

Advanced Techniques for Point at Issue Questions

Technique 1: The "Would They Say Yes or No?" Test

For each answer choice, imagine directly asking each speaker: "Do you agree with this statement: [answer choice]?" Visualize them answering "YES" or "NO" (or "I don't know").

Application: If you can clearly hear Speaker A saying "YES" and Speaker B saying "NO" (or vice versa) based on their actual statements, that's your answer. If both would say "YES," both would say "NO," or either would say "I don't know" or "That's not something I addressed," eliminate that answer choice.

This technique personalizes the Agreement Test and can help you catch subtle positions you might otherwise miss.

Technique 2: Identify Concessions and Non-Concessions

Pay careful attention to what Speaker B concedes versus what they contest. Phrases like "While X is true..." or "I agree that Y, but..." indicate partial agreement—the speaker agrees with one part but disagrees with another.

Application: Conceded points are usually NOT the point of disagreement (since they agree on them). The disagreement lies in what follows the "but" or "however." Focus your prediction on the contested elements, not the conceded ones.

Example: "While climate change is a serious concern, banning all fossil fuels immediately is not feasible." → The speaker agrees climate change is serious (concession) but disagrees that immediate bans are feasible (contestation). The disagreement is about feasibility, not seriousness.

Technique 3: Watch for Assumption-Based Disagreements

Sometimes speakers don't explicitly state their disagreement—they simply operate under different assumptions. One speaker assumes X is true, while the other assumes X is false or irrelevant.

Application: If you notice the speakers seem to be talking past each other or emphasizing different factors, identify what underlying assumption each speaker holds. The disagreement might be about whether that assumption is valid.

Example: Speaker A argues for policy Z based on the assumption that people respond rationally to economic incentives. Speaker B argues against policy Z based on examples of non-rational behavior. They disagree about whether people generally behave rationally—even if neither explicitly states this disagreement.

Technique 4: Eliminate "Half-Right" Answers

Some wrong answers correctly capture one speaker's position but introduce language the other speaker didn't commit to.

Application: When an answer choice seems partly right, rigorously test the part that seems uncertain. If you have to stretch, infer, or assume to make one speaker fit the answer, it's probably wrong. Both speakers' positions should clearly match the answer without mental gymnastics.

Practice Strategy for Point at Issue Questions

Point at Issue questions have distinctive features that require specialized practice:

  1. Practice the Agreement Test Until It's Automatic: For 10-15 Point at Issue questions, write out the Agreement Test results for every answer choice, even ones you eliminate quickly. Track: "Speaker A - Agree/Disagree/Unclear | Speaker B - Agree/Disagree/Unclear | Result: Eliminate/Keep." This builds the habit of systematic checking.
  2. Identify Your Pattern of Errors: Track which trap type catches you most often. Do you fall for "Only one speaker addresses it"? "Both agree"? "Too general/specific"? Once you identify your vulnerability, create extra awareness for that trap type.
  3. Practice Distinguishing Agreement from Disagreement: Take 5-10 Point at Issue stimuli and, before looking at answer choices, write down: (a) One thing both speakers agree on, (b) The main point of disagreement, (c) One thing only Speaker A addresses. This sharpens your ability to distinguish shared ground from contested ground.
  4. Compare Point at Issue with Point of Agreement Questions: Practice both question types together to sharpen your ability to apply the Agreement Test correctly. For Point of Agreement, you're looking for "Agree/Agree" patterns; for Point at Issue, you're looking for "Agree/Disagree" patterns.
  5. Don't Infer Beyond What's Stated: Make a conscious rule: "I will not select an answer where I have to guess what a speaker 'probably believes' or 'would likely think.'" If you catch yourself doing this, that answer is almost certainly wrong. Stick to what's explicitly stated or logically necessary.
  6. Time Management: Point at Issue questions typically take 1 minute to 1 minute 30 seconds. They're usually easier than many other LR question types because the Agreement Test provides a mechanical, reliable method. Don't overthink—if you apply the test systematically, you'll find the answer efficiently.
  7. Recognize Variations: Occasionally you'll see "Point of Agreement" questions (both speakers agree on something) or questions asking "Which speaker would agree with this?" (only one speaker matters). Practice identifying these variations so you apply the right test.
  8. Use Official Materials Only: Practice exclusively with official LSAT PrepTests from LSAC. Point at Issue questions require precise language and careful construction—third-party materials often create ambiguous or poorly written dialogue that doesn't match real LSAT quality.

Frequently Asked Questions

What if both speakers seem to disagree with each other generally, but I can't find a specific statement they oppose?
This is a common situation that requires precision. General disagreement isn't enough—the LSAT wants you to identify the SPECIFIC statement about which they hold opposing views. If they generally disagree but you can't find a precise statement that one affirms and the other denies, you haven't found the right answer yet. Keep applying the Agreement Test to each answer choice systematically. The correct answer will be a specific claim where positions clearly diverge, not just a vague sense of opposition.
Can the disagreement be about something that's not the main conclusion of either speaker?
Absolutely! In fact, the disagreement often ISN'T about the main conclusions. Speakers frequently disagree about premises, supporting claims, underlying assumptions, factual assertions, or even minor points mentioned in passing. Don't assume the disagreement must be about the "biggest" or "most important" part of their arguments. The correct answer could identify disagreement over a sub-claim, a piece of reasoning, or a factual premise—as long as both speakers have clear opposing positions on it.
What if Speaker B says "I disagree" but then seems to agree with parts of what Speaker A said?
This is very common! When Speaker B says "I disagree," they're often disagreeing with a SPECIFIC aspect of Speaker A's argument, not everything Speaker A said. Pay close attention to what comes after "I disagree" or "but"—that's where the actual disagreement lies. Speaker B might concede some of Speaker A's premises while rejecting the conclusion, or accept the conclusion while rejecting the reasoning. Don't assume "I disagree" means total opposition; identify the precise point of contestation.
How do I know if a speaker's position is "clear enough" or if it's "unclear"?
A speaker's position is CLEAR if: (1) they explicitly state it, or (2) it's a logically necessary implication of what they said (not just a reasonable inference). A speaker's position is UNCLEAR if: (1) they never address that topic, (2) you have to guess or speculate about what they'd think, or (3) you find yourself saying "they probably believe this" or "they would likely think." Err on the side of caution—if you're uncertain whether a speaker has committed to a position, mark it as UNCLEAR and eliminate that answer. The correct answer should have obviously stated or strongly implied positions from both speakers.
What's the difference between a Point at Issue question and a Point of Agreement question?
Both question types use the Agreement Test, but they're looking for opposite patterns. Point at Issue questions ask you to find where speakers DISAGREE (one agrees with the statement, one disagrees—opposing positions). Point of Agreement questions ask you to find where speakers AGREE (both agree with the statement—aligned positions). The methodology is the same—check what each speaker thinks about each answer choice—but you're looking for different patterns in the results. "Agree/Disagree" = point of disagreement (correct for Point at Issue). "Agree/Agree" = point of agreement (correct for Point of Agreement).
Should I try to figure out who's "right" or whose argument is stronger?
No! Your opinion about who's right is completely irrelevant to Point at Issue questions. You're not evaluating argument quality or determining correctness—you're simply identifying where positions differ. Treat both speakers' statements as their genuine beliefs without judging merit. Even if you personally think one speaker is obviously wrong or illogical, that doesn't affect the Agreement Test. Focus purely on comparative analysis: what does each speaker believe, and where do those beliefs conflict?
Can I use outside knowledge about the topic to help determine speakers' positions?
No—don't bring in outside knowledge, common sense about the topic, or real-world expertise. Base your analysis solely on what the speakers actually say in the stimulus. The LSAT often creates artificial scenarios or uses topics in ways that don't match real-world views. If you assume a speaker believes something based on "common sense" or "what people who hold position X usually believe," you're likely to make errors. Stick to the text: what did each speaker actually commit to based on their explicit statements?
What if I narrow it down to two answer choices and both seem to show disagreement?
When comparing two contenders, ask these tie-breaking questions: (1) Which answer choice has MORE CLEARLY stated positions from both speakers (less inference required)? (2) Which answer is MORE DIRECTLY discussed by both speakers (not just tangentially related)? (3) Which answer represents the CENTRAL point of contention rather than a peripheral issue? (4) Which answer requires FEWER logical steps to connect to what speakers said? The correct answer typically wins on most or all of these criteria—it should feel like the obvious, direct point of conflict once you identify it.
How much time should I spend on Point at Issue questions?
Point at Issue questions typically require 1 minute to 1 minute 30 seconds under test conditions. They're generally among the faster LR question types because the Agreement Test provides a systematic, mechanical approach—you don't need to evaluate complex reasoning or identify subtle flaws. The key is spending 15-20 seconds reading and understanding both speakers' positions carefully, then 40-70 seconds applying the Agreement Test to answer choices. If you're consistently exceeding 1:45, you may be overthinking or not applying the Agreement Test systematically enough. These should be high-accuracy, efficient questions once you've mastered the technique.

Official LSAT Resources

Maximize your LSAT preparation with these official resources from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC):

LSAC Official Logical Reasoning Overview LSAC Official Sample Questions LSAC LawHub Prep Platform Official LSAT PrepTests LSAT Test Dates and Registration

Mastering Point at Issue Questions: Your Path to LSAT Excellence

Point at Issue questions test one of the most fundamental skills in legal practice: the ability to identify the precise nature of disagreements between parties. Whether analyzing opposing counsel's arguments, mediating client disputes, understanding dissenting judicial opinions, or negotiating settlements, lawyers must constantly parse statements, identify points of contention, and distinguish agreement from disagreement. By mastering the systematic approach outlined in this guide—carefully reading both speakers' positions, identifying overlapping topics, predicting disagreement areas, and rigorously applying the Agreement Test to every answer choice—you'll develop the precision and analytical clarity that characterizes exceptional legal reasoning. Practice consistently with official LSAT PrepTests, always apply the Agreement Test to both speakers for every answer choice, avoid making assumptions about unstated beliefs, and train yourself to recognize the common trap answers that plague this question type. With dedicated practice and the comparative analysis strategies you've learned here, you'll gain the confidence and skill needed to excel on Point at Issue questions and achieve your target LSAT score. Remember: the disagreement is always specific and identifiable—your job is to find the exact statement where one speaker says "yes" and the other says "no." Master this skill, and you'll demonstrate the analytical precision that law schools seek in their strongest candidates!

Shares: