LSAT: Analytical Reasoning (Logic Games)

Analytical Reasoning, commonly called “Logic Games,” is the most deliberately structured part of the LSAT. Each game presents a short scenario, a finite set of entities, and a handful of rules. Your task is to translate those rules into a workable representation, then make deductions that let you answer questions quickly and accurately.

Logic Games are not a test of trivia or specialized knowledge. They are deductive reasoning puzzles. The winning approach is consistent: build a clear setup, apply rules precisely, and actively look for inferences that reduce uncertainty. While the LSAT has historically featured games like ordering, grouping, matching, and hybrids, the core skill is the same across all types: reasoning from constraints.

What Logic Games Actually Test

At a practical level, Logic Games test four abilities:

1. Constraint translation: converting English rules into a formal structure (a diagram, a table, a sequence).
2. Deduction: deriving implications that are not explicitly stated but must be true if the rules are true.
3. Casework control: knowing when to split the game into limited, manageable possibilities instead of brute forcing each question.
4. Local reasoning: handling “If” questions by adding a temporary rule and seeing what it forces.

The games are intentionally designed so that the rules “interlock.” If you represent them cleanly, the puzzle becomes tractable. If you keep everything in your head, it becomes slow and error-prone.

The Core Workflow: Setup, Rules, Inferences, Questions

A reliable process reduces mistakes and increases speed.

1) Build the base setup

Start by identifying the game’s fundamental structure:

• Are you placing items into ordered positions?
• Are you assigning items into groups?
• Are you pairing items to matches?
• Are you doing more than one of these at once?

Your diagram should reflect the structure. For an ordering game, that typically means slots in a line. For grouping, it often means labeled groups with capacity constraints. For matching, it can be a grid, a list of assignments, or a two-column mapping.

2) Translate each rule precisely

Rules come in a few common forms:

• Sequencing: “A is before B.”
• Adjacency: “C is immediately before D.”
• Separation: “E is not next to F.”
• Conditional: “If G is in Group 1, then H is in Group 2.”
• Numerical: “Exactly two of the students are assigned to Lab X.”

When you translate, keep the meaning exact. “Before” does not mean “immediately before.” “Not next to” does not mean “not near.” Precision matters because one misread rule can poison every question.

3) Make inferences before you touch the questions

This is where points are won. Inferences are forced consequences of the rules. Common sources of inferences include:

• Combining rules: If A is before B, and B is before C, then A is before C.
• Limited positions: If D must be before E, and only two slots exist where that can happen, D and E are effectively constrained to those slots.
• Mutual exclusivity: If F must be in one of two groups and cannot be in one due to another rule, its placement becomes fixed.
• Conditional chains: If $G\to H$ and $H\to I$, then $G\to I$.

A small set of inferences can eliminate entire answer choices without extensive diagramming later.

4) Use questions to your advantage

Logic Games questions are patterned. Recognizing the type tells you the fastest method.

• “Which of the following could be…”: A viability check. Try answers and look for a rule violation quickly.
• “Which must be true…”: You want deductions, not trial and error.
• “If…” questions: Add the condition to your diagram and see what becomes forced.
• “Complete and accurate list” questions: These reward strong base inferences and sometimes systematic casework.

Game Types and How to Approach Them

Ordering Games (Sequencing)

Ordering games ask you to arrange entities in a sequence, such as scheduling presentations across time slots. The key is to track relative order constraints and identify fixed blocks.

What to look for:

• Blocks from “immediately before/after” rules (e.g., CD behaves like a single unit).
• Chains (A before B before C).
• Limited placements for blocks and key items.

Practical tip: When you have a block, treat it as one object for placement, but remember it consumes multiple slots. This often produces immediate placement restrictions near the ends of the sequence.

Grouping Games

Grouping games assign entities into categories, teams, or bins. Some are pure grouping (no order within groups), while others add order inside each group.

What to look for:

• Group sizes/capacity constraints (exactly, at least, at most).
• In-out rules (an entity must be in Group X, cannot be in Group Y).
• Conditional membership rules (“If J is in Team 1, K is not in Team 1”).

Practical tip: Numerical constraints are powerful. If a group has a maximum of two and you already have two forced members, every other entity becomes “out” by necessity.

Matching Games (Assignments)

Matching games pair elements from different sets, such as assigning each person to a role, each class to a professor, or each product to a shelf. Sometimes the matching is one-to-one; sometimes multiple items can share the same match.

What to look for:

• Uniqueness: Does each match get used once, or can it repeat?
• Linking rules: “If L is assigned to Monday, then M is assigned to Tuesday.”
• Exclusions: “N cannot be assigned to Room 3.”

Practical tip: When uniqueness applies, each assignment removes options elsewhere. Track remaining possibilities cleanly. A small contradiction often reveals the correct answer quickly.

Hybrid Games

Hybrid games combine structures, such as grouping plus ordering (people assigned to two committees with an order of presentations within each), or matching plus ordering (assigning speakers to days and ordering them within the day).

What to look for:

• Which structure is primary and which is secondary.
• Whether a rule affects one layer (group membership) or the other (order), or links both.

Practical tip: Keep the diagram readable. It is often better to use two coordinated representations (for example, a grouping chart plus mini-ordering slots for each group) than to force everything into one crowded sketch.

The Most Productive Inference Tools

Limited options and “not both” reasoning

If two entities cannot both occupy a constrained resource (like the last slot, or a small group), you can often derive a split. For instance, if either A or B must be in Group 1 and Group 1 has only one spot left, then placing A there forces B out.

Contrapositives for conditional rules

For a conditional rule $P\to Q$, the contrapositive is $\neg Q\to \neg P$. In games, this is often as important as the original. If “If T is on Friday, U is on Thursday,” then “If U is not on Thursday, T is not on Friday.” Writing both can immediately eliminate answer choices.

Strategic casework

Some games are built to be split into a few cases early (for example, one entity can only go in two places, and each creates a different chain of consequences). When the cases are limited and informative, casework increases speed because each question becomes a lookup rather than a fresh puzzle.

The discipline is to casework only when it is bounded. Two or three cases can be excellent. Five or six cases is usually a sign that a different inference is needed first.

Common Mistakes That Cost Time and Points

• Starting questions without deductions: You end up re-deriving the same consequences repeatedly.
• Overcomplicated diagrams: Clarity beats artistry. Your setup should be quick to read under time pressure.
• Misreading rule strength: “Exactly” vs. “at least,” “before” vs. “immediately before,” “some” vs. “all.”
• Forgetting the scope of an “If”: Local questions add a temporary condition. Do not accidentally carry it into later questions.
• Ignoring numerical constraints: In grouping games, numbers often drive the cleanest deductions.

Building Speed Without Sacrificing Accuracy

Speed in Logic Games is mostly the byproduct of good structure. When your diagram is accurate and your inferences are organized, questions become mechanical. You are not “clever” on every question; you are consistent.

A practical way to improve is to review completed games by asking:

• Which inference would have reduced my work the most?
• Did I miss a contrapositive that would have eliminated answers faster?
• Did I casework too late, or too early?
• Did my diagram make violations easy to spot?

Logic Games reward methodical thinking. With a reliable setup, careful rule translation, and active inference-making, ordering, grouping, matching, and hybrid games all become variations on the same core skill: extracting certainty from constraints.