LSAT Language Strength: How Strong Can an Answer Be?
The two modes, the words that change what a sentence claims, and how to recognize when an answer is too strong.
There is a category of LSAT question you can understand perfectly and still get wrong. You read the passage correctly. You find the conclusion. You understand the evidence supporting it. Then you choose an answer that says slightly more than the argument supports, and you get the question wrong because of a single word.
Language strength is one of the most reliable ways to eliminate wrong answers on the Logical Reasoning section. It takes students a surprisingly long time to rely on it, because at first it seems to be about grammar and not about logic.
It is logic. Some is different from most. May is different from will. Helped cause is different from caused. More effective compares two things, and effective does not.
This is not a difficult idea, only an unfamiliar one. People use the phrase long before anyone defines it. Students are told to pay attention to the strength of the language without being told what that means. So this article assumes you have never heard the phrase. One term first: the stimulus is the short passage that a Logical Reasoning question is about.
First: what does “language strength” mean?
Language strength is how much a sentence claims. Compare these:
Some students passed.
Most students passed.
Every student passed.
Each sentence claims more than the sentence before it. Other kinds of words have the same order, from weaker to stronger:
The treatment may help.
The treatment probably helps.
The treatment always helps.
A stronger statement gives you more information. It also needs more evidence. And you can reason from a stronger statement to a weaker one, but not from a weaker one to a stronger one. If every member of a group has a trait (and the group has at least one member), then most members have it and some members have it. If some have it, you do not know whether most have it. If most have it, you do not know whether all have it.
Almost everyone gets one thing wrong at first. In conversation, some implies “not all” and most implies “not quite all.” On the LSAT, neither word has that upper limit. “Most students passed” does not tell you that anybody failed. If all 100 students passed, it is still true that most passed. “Some students passed” does not tell you that anybody failed either. Most can be true when all is true, and so can some. Students get questions wrong because they assume the conversational limit applies.
The language bank
These are the meanings the words have on the LSAT, which can differ from what the words seem to mean in ordinary conversation. What matters is the minimum each expression claims. Read through this once, then return to it when the examples below use it.
The categories matter as much as the entries, because each category produces a different kind of wrong answer. One wrong answer states a quantity that the stimulus never stated. Another makes a comparison when the stimulus discussed only one thing. A third states a probability when the stimulus said only that something was possible. All three are extremely common.
Conditionals are the one category where it is a mistake to label a word “strong” and do nothing more. If, only and only if all state rules, but they do not state the same rule. In the forms listed above, if introduces the sufficient condition, and only and only if introduce the necessary condition. Write each one as an if-then statement, so that you know which condition is sufficient and which is necessary. Do not only note that the word is strong.
Comparison words cause mistakes for a different reason. An answer can make a comparison the stimulus never made, even when every noun in the answer appeared in the stimulus. If the stimulus told you that experienced attorneys are effective negotiators, it did not tell you that they are more effective than inexperienced ones. The comparison is not a stronger version of the original statement. It adds a second group.
The two modes
Now that you know what the words mean, you need to know how strong the correct answer can be. That depends on the mode and the specific task.
Mode 1. The stimulus gives you the information. You draw an inference, make a judgment or describe the reasoning, using only what you were given.
Mode 2. You add the information. The answer choice is a new fact that you add to the argument, and you are told to accept it as true.
How you learn this matters. Most students learn it as two lists of question types and memorize the lists. Then they do not know what to do the first time a question is worded in a way that is not on their list. Do not rely on the lists. Use the rule: if you are not adding the answer choice to the argument as a new fact, the question is Mode 1.
The rule determines which question types are on each list. The lists do not replace the rule. The Mode 2 list is the short one:
- Strengthen and Weaken
- Sufficient Assumption
- Resolve the Paradox / Explain the Discrepancy
- Principle questions where you supply the principle that justifies the conclusion
- Principle questions where you supply new information to justify an application of a principle
- Most Logically Completes, but only when the word or phrase before the blank introduces a reason, such as since, because, for, as or on the grounds that
Everything else is Mode 1: Must Be True and Inference however the question is worded, Most Strongly Supported, Most Strongly Suggested, Must Be False and Cannot Be True, Most Logically Completes when the word before the blank introduces a conclusion, Necessary Assumption, Flaw, Main Conclusion, Role of a Statement, Method of Reasoning, Point at Issue, Parallel Reasoning, Flawed Parallel, the three principle tasks in which you do not add a principle or a fact to the argument, Misinterpretation, Evaluate the Argument, Illustration and Generalization. In Reading Comprehension, Mode 1 includes Main Point, Author’s Opinion, another party’s opinion, According to the Passage, Most Strongly Suggests, Definition, Purpose, Value Most Highly and the hypothetical application questions. Strengthen and Weaken appear in Reading Comprehension too, and they are Mode 2 there, as they are in Logical Reasoning.
EXCEPT and LEAST questions do not change any of this. A Strengthen EXCEPT question is still a Strengthen question. Its question stem, which is the sentence that asks the question, asks which answer does not strengthen the argument.
Mode 1: the task sets the limit
In Mode 1 you compare the answer with the information you were given, and that information limits how strong the correct answer can be. What the limit is depends on the task:
On inference questions, such as Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported, the stimulus sets an upper bound, which is a maximum: the answer cannot claim more than the information provided supports. Correct-answer strength ≤ support provided by the stimulus. The answer has to be at or below that maximum, and a weaker statement can be correct. If the stimulus states that every physician completed the training, then it follows that some physicians did, and an answer saying so can be the correct answer.
On Necessary Assumption the limit is what the argument requires, not what its premises state. (The premises are the statements the argument gives as evidence.) The answer does not have to follow from the premises. Usually it is not stated anywhere in them. An answer that claims more than the argument requires is not necessary, so it is wrong. Correct answers here often claim little, because arguments usually require little. That is a tendency and not a rule: if the argument requires a majority, the correct answer can say most. The Negate Test, explained below, is how you check.
On description and matching questions, such as Main Conclusion, Method of Reasoning, Role of a Statement, Point at Issue and Parallel Reasoning, the answer has to describe the argument accurately and keep its meaning or its structure. A Main Conclusion question asks which answer most accurately expresses the conclusion. “Some physicians completed the training” does not accurately express a conclusion that said every physician did, even though it follows from that conclusion.
On inference questions, the upper bound is how you eliminate answers. If the stimulus says something may occur, you cannot infer that it will. If the stimulus says some members of a group have a trait, you cannot infer that most do. If the stimulus never compared A with B, you cannot infer that A is more effective than B, more common than B, or more of anything than B. You can eliminate those answers before you consider anything else. The rule is about what was stated to you, and a stated quantity includes every weaker quantity: all includes most. Two stated quantities together can also guarantee a comparison that neither one states by itself. The article on “most” explains an example in detail.
Example
Stimulus: Heavy rainfall in spring may increase the mosquito population by midsummer.
Answer choice: Heavy spring rainfall will produce more mosquitoes by midsummer than a dry spring would.
There are two separate problems, and either one makes the answer wrong. The stimulus says may and the answer says will, which changes a possibility into a guarantee. And more … than a dry spring is a comparison the stimulus never made. The stimulus described one condition, not two.
An important qualification: judge the whole claim, not the strongest word in it
If you apply the rule one word at a time, it gives the wrong result here. This matters, because a careful student will otherwise think the rule contradicts itself.
Language strength applies to what the answer choice claims as a whole, not to each strong word in it. Consider a Flaw answer:
Example
Answer choice: The argument overlooks the possibility that every dentist included in the survey works for the company that manufactures the toothpaste.
Every is the strongest quantity word there is. But the answer does not claim that every surveyed dentist works for the company. It claims that the argument did not consider that possibility. That is a far weaker claim, and you can confirm it by reading the argument.
So you cannot judge language strength only by finding the strong words. You have to read the phrase that the strong word is part of. Look at overlooks the possibility that, fails to consider whether and does not establish that. When one of these phrases comes before a statement, the answer does not claim that the statement is true. It claims only that the argument did not consider the statement or did not establish it.
A phrase like that does not make the answer correct, either. An answer that says the argument overlooked a possibility is correct only if that possibility would weaken the argument if it were true. An argument does not have to consider a possibility that would not weaken it.
This is also the reason Flaw is a Mode 1 question type even though its answers use such strong words. A Flaw answer is a claim about the argument, and you were given the whole argument. Either the argument established that enough dentists were surveyed or it did not. You find out by reading the argument, not by adding a fact about dentists. The same is true of Method of Reasoning, Role of a Statement, Point at Issue and Parallel Reasoning. Their answers describe the argument, not the subject the argument is about, so they can use strong words and still be within the Mode 1 limit.
The clearest way to see the difference is to write the same problem as an answer in each mode.
The same problem, in each mode
Flaw, Mode 1: The argument fails to establish that enough dentists were surveyed to support a conclusion about dentists generally.
Weakener, Mode 2: Only eight dentists were surveyed.
The first describes a weakness in the reasoning, and you check whether it is accurate by reading the stimulus. The second states a new fact, and you are told to accept it as true. The problem is the same, and the two answers do two different things.
Why Necessary Assumption is Mode 1
This is one of the classifications I most often see taught incorrectly. To be precise about that claim: the two modes are my own way of grouping question types, and a course that groups question types differently is not wrong for doing so. The mistake is treating a necessary assumption as a new fact that makes the argument stronger, when it is something the argument already depends on.
A necessary assumption is usually not stated in the stimulus, so it is tempting to think you are adding it. You are not. A necessary assumption is something the argument already depends on. You identify it. You do not add it. That is why the Negate Test works: you suppose the answer is false, and if the argument no longer supports its conclusion, the argument required that answer.
How strength works on these questions confirms it.
Example
Suppose an argument requires only that some members of the committee knew about the problem.
An answer saying every member knew would certainly help the argument. But it is not necessary, because the argument requires only one. The stronger answer claims more than the argument requires, and a Necessary Assumption answer that claims more than the argument requires is wrong.
Sufficient Assumption has the opposite rule. There you add enough to guarantee the conclusion, so an answer is never wrong for being strong, and strong language is often what the answer needs. The two question types have similar names, and they differ in this way: on Necessary Assumption, an answer can be too strong. On Sufficient Assumption, it cannot. What defines Mode 1 is that the information you were given limits how strong the correct answer can be. The article on “most” explains one answer that is wrong as a necessary assumption and right as a sufficient one.
This matters because the wrong version gets taught. A national prep course I took taught that every Sufficient Assumption question is a mismatched concept: a term in one part of the argument that does not match a term in another part. It is not. Very many are enabling assumptions. In those, the argument is not missing a connection between two terms. It is missing a condition that it never states and that has to be true for the conclusion to follow. A student who was taught the false version will look for a mismatch, not find one, and conclude that they are bad at the question type. They are not. They were taught something wrong.
This article also revises a rule of my own that I had been stating too simply. I do not expect to get every rule right the first time. I do expect not to leave a rule incomplete because the simple version is easier to teach.
Mode 2: the answer has to be strong enough for the task
The standard advice for Mode 2 is “look for strong language.” That is a useful simplification for beginners. It is not the rule.
Choose the answer that is strong enough to do what the task requires. Strong wording alone does not make an answer correct. What matters is the effect the answer has on the argument.
On Sufficient Assumption there is a fixed requirement: the answer has to guarantee the conclusion. An answer that does so is correct, and it is not wrong for being stronger than it needs to be.
On Strengthen and Weaken there is no fixed requirement of that kind. The correct answer has to make the conclusion more likely or less likely. It does not have to prove the conclusion or disprove it. The question stem asks which answer “most strengthens” or “most weakens” the argument, but treat the answers as correct or incorrect, not better or worse. An answer whose language is too weak for that argument is incorrect, even if it has some small effect on the argument.
Often the task does require strong language.
Strong language, because the task requires it
Stimulus: Researchers surveyed 200 UT Law students about whether they preferred vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Sixty-eight percent chose vanilla. So most UT Law students prefer vanilla to chocolate.
Strengthener: Every UT Law student had an equal probability of being selected for the survey.
The answer says every student and equal probability. That is very strong language, and it is correct here. The question is Mode 2, so you add the answer as new information. It tells you that students who prefer one flavor did not have a greater chance of being selected than students who prefer the other. That supports using the survey to draw a conclusion about the whole school. “Some students who prefer vanilla were surveyed” adds nothing, because the stimulus already says that.
But a stronger answer is not automatically the correct one. Sometimes one fact about a single case is enough.
Weak language, and it is enough
Conclusion: No person has ever visited Saint Alder Island.
Weakener: Some sailors from an 1802 expedition went ashore on Saint Alder.
The answer guarantees that at least one person visited the island at least once, two centuries ago. It does not establish that hundreds visited, or that anyone visited recently, or that anyone settled there. None of that matters, because the conclusion said no person, ever.
To contradict “no one has ever done this,” you do not have to show that everyone has. You only have to show that one person did.
One counterexample, which is one case that contradicts the claim, is enough to disprove a claim that says all, none, always or never.
Change the quantity word and the requirement changes
Example
Conclusion: Most of the plant species on Saint Alder grow nowhere else on Earth.
Learning that one Saint Alder species also grows on the mainland does not contradict this. Neither does learning that two do. A most claim can be true even when there are exceptions.
Be careful about what that does and does not mean. It does not mean that a Weakener has to state a majority. To weaken a conclusion is to make it less likely, not to prove it false. An answer showing that the sample came from one unusual coastline could weaken the conclusion without counting any species. The point is only this: one exception proves an all or none claim false. One exception does not prove a most claim false.
So before you evaluate any answer choice on a Strengthen or Weaken question, read the conclusion and identify exactly what it claims. Is it all? None? Most? Some? Probably? A comparison with something else? A cause? Only a contributing factor? Different conclusions need different kinds and amounts of evidence to make them more likely or less likely. Asking what the conclusion claims is far more reliable than asking whether an answer uses strong words.
This replaces a rule of mine that was too simple. I have told students to be suspicious of any answer beginning with some on a Strengthen or Weaken question. Such answers are often wrong, so that advice has some use. But if you treat it as a rule, it is wrong, and I would rather you had the accurate rule: ask whether that amount of information is enough to strengthen or weaken this argument. Sometimes one fact about a single case is enough. Sometimes it is irrelevant. The first word of the answer does not tell you which.
The Floor Test
For vague words, use what I call the Floor Test. The name refers to the minimum: the least that the sentence can mean. The idea is simple:
Ask what is the minimum the sentence states. Do not assume it states something stronger because the stronger meaning seems natural.
Example: HELPED
Stimulus: The new drainage ditch helped reduce standing water on the property.
How much of the reduction did the ditch cause? Maybe it eliminated nearly all the standing water. Maybe it was one of several major causes. Maybe it caused a very small part of the improvement. The word helped is true in all three cases.
So the stimulus states only that the ditch made some contribution. An answer saying the ditch eliminated the standing-water problem claims more than that. An answer saying the ditch was responsible for the reduction may also claim more, if “responsible for” means that the ditch was the cause and “helped” did not say that.
Use the same check on any vague word:
- some → at least one
- may → possible, and nothing more
- helped → made some contribution
- up to 40 percent → a maximum, not a number near 40
- consistent with → does not contradict the evidence, which is less than being shown true by it
People tend to read a sentence as stronger than it is. The Floor Test stops you from doing that. Apply it to the phrase, then check the rest of the stimulus, because another sentence can state what that one word did not.
Two words to notice every time: MOST and MORE
The most important habit in this article is this one: notice two words every time you see them, MOST and MORE.
MOST means more than 50 percent. Students read past it because it sounds casual in ordinary English, but on the LSAT it changes what the sentence claims. And remember that most can be true when all is true: “most students passed” does not establish that anyone failed. I explain the word completely, including how it combines with other quantity statements, in “Most”: The Most Important Word on the LSAT.
MORE makes a comparison, and it is one of the most common ways a wrong answer adds information that was never stated. If a passage tells you that experienced attorneys are highly effective negotiators, you cannot infer that they are more effective than inexperienced ones. Maybe they are. The passage said nothing about inexperienced attorneys. The statement that they are more effective is not a stronger version of what the passage said. It adds a second group. This wrong answer appears very often on Inference questions, in Reading Comprehension and on opinion questions.
How to use this on a question
- Identify the mode. Are you adding the answer choice to the argument as a new fact? If no, Mode 1. If yes, Mode 2.
- In Mode 1, ask what the task requires. On inference questions, require strength ≤ support. On Necessary Assumption, ask whether the argument requires the answer. On description questions, ask whether the answer describes the argument accurately.
- In Mode 2, ask what the answer has to do. Do not choose the strongest answer automatically. Ask whether it is strong enough to strengthen, weaken, guarantee or explain, whichever the question asks for.
- Read the conclusion carefully before the answers, especially on Strengthen and Weaken. Note its quantity, its certainty, any comparison, any causal claim, and which people, things, times and places it is about.
- Apply the Floor Test to vague words. Judge the minimum the sentence guarantees, not a stronger meaning that you assumed.
- Check every comparison in an answer. If the stimulus discussed only one thing, it made no comparison. Choosing an answer like that is one of the most common avoidable mistakes on Inference questions.
- Evaluate the whole claim, not single words. A strong word that follows “may,” “fails to rule out” or “overlooks the possibility that” does not make the answer itself strong.
Language strength is not a list of words to memorize. It means identifying exactly what each statement claims and not assuming that it claims more.
This is one part of a larger method. The full LSAT Masterclass teaches every question type, the categories of flaws, the Proof Test, the Negate Test, conditional reasoning, recurring argument structures and Reading Comprehension, and you practice it on the official tests in your own LawHub account. The LSAT Masterclass Study Guide is included with tutoring. Logic Refined is my separate practice app for original questions, answer explanations, Review and saved progress. Try the free samples, or start 7 days free, then $9.99/month.
If your score has stopped improving and you cannot identify exactly why you are still missing questions, that is the problem I am best at solving. Book a free consultation and tell me your current score and your goal.