Principle questions connect general rules to specific cases, and they run in both directions. Identify-the-principle questions give you a concrete argument and ask which general rule would justify it. Apply-the-principle questions hand you the rule and ask which specific situation conforms to it. Same bridge, crossed opposite ways.
The justify direction behaves like a sufficient assumption question wearing different clothes: the right principle, added to the facts, should lock in the conclusion. The apply direction behaves like an inference question: treat the principle as an ironclad rule and find the case it actually covers, not the case it vaguely resembles.
Precision with the rule's parts is everything. A principle typically has a trigger ("if a promise was made voluntarily…") and a payoff ("…it ought to be kept"). Wrong answers systematically garble one or the other: they fire the payoff without the trigger, reverse the direction, or swap "permitted" for "required."
Stem language that signals this type:
Every principle is an if-then at heart. Write the trigger and the payoff separately, then demand both from the answer, a case that matches the payoff without satisfying the trigger doesn't conform.
Find the evaluative word in the conclusion ("unfair," "should," "justified"), the correct principle must output exactly that judgment from inputs the facts actually supply.
Principles often carry multiple conditions ("voluntarily," "unless doing so causes harm"). The right case satisfies all of them; trap cases satisfy most.
"May," "must," "should not" are different rules. An answer that proves an action permissible cannot justify a conclusion that the action is required.
An original question written in the LSAT style, not from a real test.
Editor: Our reviewer praised the novel without disclosing that she and the author share a literary agent. Even though her praise was sincere, we must append a disclosure note to the review.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the editor's decision?
Pick an answer to check your reasoning.
On justify questions, a principle can be too narrow to reach the conclusion, but a suspiciously sweeping one may cover cases that break elsewhere. The right answer is exactly wide enough.
Given "if X then ought-Y," traps present a case of Y and conclude X was present. Rules run one direction unless stated otherwise.
On apply questions, the tempting answer shares the scenario's subject but fails a condition, the promise wasn't voluntary, the harm exception applies.
Take the free diagnostic to see exactly where your points are going, or talk it through with a 170+ tutor, free, for 15 minutes.
They're better understood as a wrapper. Justify-direction principle questions work like sufficient assumption questions; apply-direction ones work like inference questions. The wrapper changes the language, not the logic.
Added to the stated facts, it should make the conclusion follow. Check that the facts satisfy the principle's trigger and that its payoff is the conclusion's actual judgment, not a cousin of it.
Audit every condition in the rule against the case. Traps typically satisfy the headline condition and quietly fail a qualifier like "voluntarily," "unless," or "only if."
Usually three to five per test across both LR sections, split between the justify and apply directions.
Find the unstated premise the argument can't live without.
Pick the new fact that makes the conclusion more believable.
Find what the statements, taken together, actually prove.
Or head back to all question types · What is the LSAT?
Last updated July 9, 2026 · by the theLSATguru team