Start with the right exam variant
Since August 2024 the multiple-choice LSAT has scored Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension, with an additional unscored section. Logic Games is not a current section; Argumentative Writing is separate.
LSAT error log template
Track LSAT reasoning errors by conclusion, evidence, assumption and passage support rather than memorized answers.
Find the cause behind the missed task
Record the logical step or passage evidence that made a distractor attractive, then test a new argument.
Turn the record into next practice
Use the five fictional examples below to connect a cause to a correction and a new task. Copy the structure, replace the example evidence with your own, and keep the next step small enough to complete.
- Choose a repeated Logical Reasoning or Reading Comprehension task.
- Map the conclusion, evidence or passage position without relying on remembered answer letters.
- Try a different argument or passage and explain why an attractive distractor fails.
- Retry after a gap, preserving evidence for the exact question task.
- Record independent justification; keep separate Argumentative Writing criterion evidence if used.
Verify transfer instead of collecting errors
A remembered explanation is not the same as an independent success. Retry after a gap, then use a different example in mixed practice. Record both the outcome and the reasoning before retiring the error.
Copy, edit, and use
The complete editable template
No email gate. Copy it now or download a Markdown version.
# LSAT error log
Exam variant: Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing
## One practice record
LawHub source/test/section/item reference:
Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension or separate Argumentative Writing:
Question task:
Conclusion/passage evidence:
Distractor attraction:
Cause:
Correction:
Next practice:
Confidence before checking and evidence for that confidence:
Review date:
Later verification:
## Weekly review loop
1. Choose a repeated Logical Reasoning or Reading Comprehension task.
2. Map the conclusion, evidence or passage position without relying on remembered answer letters.
3. Try a different argument or passage and explain why an attractive distractor fails.
4. Retry after a gap, preserving evidence for the exact question task.
5. Record independent justification; keep separate Argumentative Writing criterion evidence if used.
Official sources checked: 2026-10-05
LSAT current format FAQs: https://www.lsac.org/lsat/frequently-asked-questions-about-lsat
Official LSAT practice tests on LawHub: https://www.lsac.org/lsat/prepare/official-lsat-practice-tests
Use a source reference and your own explanation, not copied protected exam questions.
For writing and speaking, record criterion evidence and feedback; there is no single answer key.See the blank structure used with fictional data
Every example is labelled, copyable, and keeps learner-facing text separate from private notes.
Example
1. Logical Reasoning: necessary assumption
Original fictional practice record for Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing; not a released exam question.
EXAMPLE — ORIGINAL FICTIONAL DATA
Exam variant: Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing
Skill or task: Logical Reasoning: necessary assumption
What happened: Picked a helpful statement that the argument did not require.
Likely cause: Confused strengthening with necessity.
Correction: Ask whether denying the candidate undermines the stated reasoning.
Next practice: Compare necessary and merely helpful assumptions on new arguments.
Verify the retry: Explain necessity for a fresh candidate.
Review date: choose a date after a gap, then test again in mixed practice.Example
2. Logical Reasoning: conditional reasoning
Original fictional practice record for Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing; not a released exam question.
EXAMPLE — ORIGINAL FICTIONAL DATA
Exam variant: Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing
Skill or task: Logical Reasoning: conditional reasoning
What happened: Reversed the direction of an if-then statement.
Likely cause: Treated a sufficient condition as a necessary one.
Correction: Write the stated implication and a valid contrapositive.
Next practice: Translate three new conditional claims.
Verify the retry: Check a later inference against the original direction.
Review date: choose a date after a gap, then test again in mixed practice.Example
3. Logical Reasoning: flaw
Original fictional practice record for Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing; not a released exam question.
EXAMPLE — ORIGINAL FICTIONAL DATA
Exam variant: Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing
Skill or task: Logical Reasoning: flaw
What happened: Named a flaw unrelated to the actual conclusion.
Likely cause: Matched a familiar label before mapping the argument.
Correction: State the leap from premises to conclusion in plain language.
Next practice: Describe flaws in two unfamiliar short arguments.
Verify the retry: Explain the specific leap before selecting an answer.
Review date: choose a date after a gap, then test again in mixed practice.Example
4. Reading Comprehension: author attitude
Original fictional practice record for Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing; not a released exam question.
EXAMPLE — ORIGINAL FICTIONAL DATA
Exam variant: Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing
Skill or task: Reading Comprehension: author attitude
What happened: Inferred strong approval from a neutral description.
Likely cause: Used the topic rather than tone and qualification as evidence.
Correction: Locate wording that supports the degree of attitude.
Next practice: Compare two attitude descriptions with text support.
Verify the retry: Cite tone evidence in a new passage.
Review date: choose a date after a gap, then test again in mixed practice.Example
5. Reading Comprehension: comparative passage
Original fictional practice record for Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing; not a released exam question.
EXAMPLE — ORIGINAL FICTIONAL DATA
Exam variant: Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing
Skill or task: Reading Comprehension: comparative passage
What happened: Attributed one author's view to both passages.
Likely cause: Failed to track separate claims and points of agreement.
Correction: Keep an A/B claim map and mark shared versus distinct positions.
Next practice: Map a fresh pair before answering.
Verify the retry: Verify a later comparison with evidence from both passages.
Review date: choose a date after a gap, then test again in mixed practice.Keep the fields that change a real decision
- Exam variant keeps the record tied to Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing rather than a different test or an outdated format.
- Task evidence separates a knowledge gap from a reading, method, pacing, or confidence problem.
- The correction records a reusable explanation rather than only the right answer.
- Next practice and the review date turn diagnosis into a scheduled action.
- Verification shows whether the correction transferred to new work without the notes.
Protect privacy and avoid false precision
- Protected exam questions, answer choices, passages, or audio copied into a public log.
- Candidate IDs, account credentials, or personal information unrelated to the practice decision.
- Score guarantees, invented examiner marks, or unofficial format claims treated as current policy.
- Treating written or spoken responses as if only one wording could be correct.
Useful next step
Give the next practice session a clear purpose
Use the matching guide to choose a review priority, test the correction, and decide what to practise next for Current Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension and separate Argumentative Writing.
Independent learning aid. Original fictional examples; no score guarantees.Questions and limits
Common questions
Continue in SubSchool
Turn the page into a real teaching workflow
Track LSAT reasoning errors by conclusion, evidence, assumption and passage support rather than memorized answers.