Guides to LSAT wrong-answer traps and reasoning patterns
These guides explain the diagnostic labels BulletPrep uses when reviewing LSAT Logical Reasoning answer choices. Use them to turn a dashboard pattern into a concrete review habit.
Wrong-Answer Traps
Patterns in tempting incorrect answer choices.
Too Strong
The answer overclaims beyond what the argument or passage supports.
Too Weak
The answer is directionally relevant but does not do enough for the task.
Out of Scope
The answer shifts to a point the stimulus or passage never puts at issue.
Unsupported
The answer sounds plausible, but the text does not give enough support for it.
Opposite Answer
The answer moves in the opposite direction from what the question calls for.
Partially Right
The answer matches part of the text while missing or distorting a key condition.
True but Unresponsive
The answer may be true, but it does not answer the actual question asked.
Reverses the Relationship
The answer flips the direction of a relationship or dependency in the text.
Wrong Question Type
The answer would fit a different LSAT task better than this one.
Premise Booster
The answer supports or repeats a premise without addressing the reasoning gap.
Irrelevant Distinction
The answer draws a distinction in the same topic area that does not affect the argument.
Extreme Quantifier
The answer leans on all, none, only, or similar language that is too rigid.
Role Confusion
The answer misidentifies what a statement is doing in the argument.
Principle Mismatch
The answer gives a principle that does not match the case or condition in front of you.
Wrong Passage
The answer attributes an idea to the wrong passage or speaker.
Tone Misread
The answer chooses an attitude that is too strong, too neutral, or pointed the wrong way.
Wrong Location
The answer pulls from the wrong part of the passage or misplaces a reference.
False Agreement
The answer claims agreement or disagreement the passages do not actually show.
Reasoning Patterns
Argument and flaw patterns that frequently drive misses.
Correlation to Causation
The reasoning treats two things moving together as proof that one caused the other.
Alternative Cause
The reasoning overlooks another factor that could explain the result.
Reversed Causation
The reasoning may have the cause and effect backward.
Post Hoc
The reasoning treats something that happened earlier as the cause without more proof.
Necessary/Sufficient Confusion
The reasoning mixes up what is required with what is enough.
Mistaken Reversal
The reasoning reverses a conditional statement in a way that does not follow.
Mistaken Negation
The reasoning negates both sides of a conditional statement in a way that does not follow.
Quantifier Shift
The reasoning changes the force of words like some, most, all, or none.
Scope Shift
The reasoning moves from one subject or population to another.
Term Shift
The reasoning relies on a word or idea changing meaning midstream.
Part/Whole Confusion
The reasoning assumes what is true of a part must be true of the whole, or vice versa.
Relative/Absolute Confusion
The reasoning confuses a comparison with an absolute claim.
Sampling Flaw
The reasoning draws a conclusion from a sample that may not represent the target group.
Unsupported Generalization
The reasoning draws a broad conclusion from too little evidence.
Weak Analogy
The reasoning depends on a comparison where the relevant similarity is not established.
Irrelevant Comparison
The reasoning compares things in a way that does not address the conclusion.
Circular Reasoning
The reasoning assumes the point it is trying to prove.
False Dichotomy
The reasoning treats the options as exhausted when other possibilities may exist.
Ad Hominem
The reasoning attacks a person or source instead of addressing the argument.
Straw Man
The reasoning responds to a distorted version of the opposing position.