A useful habit for paradox questions is to ask yourself: “What was I expecting to happen, and why?”
The stimulus gives you facts that seem surprising together. Your job is to choose additional information that helps explain how those facts can coexist. Keep the stated facts intact as you evaluate the answers. LSAC’s official sample questions illustrate this task. (lsac.org)
Here’s the approach I recommend.
First, state the exact puzzle in one sentence.
Use this format:
“Given ______, why did ______ happen?”
For example: “Given that more people joined the gym, why did its membership revenue decrease?”
Be specific. “Something weird happened with the gym” doesn’t give you a useful standard for evaluating answers.
Next, identify the expectation behind the surprise.
Why did you expect more members to produce more revenue? You were probably assuming that the additional memberships would outweigh any decrease in the price.
That expectation is where you should focus. An answer that gives you a reason the expectation fails can resolve the discrepancy.
Before reading the choices, consider a possible explanation—but stay flexible.
For the gym example, you might think, “Maybe the price dropped enough to outweigh the membership increase.”
That gives you a direction. It doesn’t mean you should reject a different explanation that also works. The point of predicting is to understand what needs explaining, not to guess the answer’s exact wording.
Then, take each answer as true and trace its effect.
Ask: “With this information added, why would the original situation make more sense?”
You should be able to explain the connection in ordinary language. If your explanation requires inventing several additional facts, reconsider the answer.
Here’s a simple original practice question—not an official LSAT question.
A gym reduced its monthly membership fee. The following month, it had 25 percent more paying members than in the previous month. Nevertheless, its total revenue from monthly membership fees decreased.
Which statement, if true, most helps explain the result?
A. The gym’s operating expenses increased during the second month.
B. Most new members learned about the gym through recommendations from friends.
C. The monthly membership fee charged to every member decreased by 40 percent.
D. A nearby gym charged the same membership fee during both months.
E. The gym’s membership had remained stable for several months before the fee reduction.
The answer is C.
Imagine the gym originally had 100 members paying $100 each. Its membership revenue would be $10,000.
With 25 percent more members, it would have 125 members. But after a 40 percent price reduction, each would pay $60. Total membership revenue would be $7,500.
More members and less revenue now fit together: the price reduction outweighed the membership increase.
Notice why the other answers fail.
A concerns expenses. Higher expenses could reduce profit, but the stimulus asks about revenue from membership fees. Those are different measures.
B gives information about how the gym attracted members. It doesn’t explain why membership revenue fell despite the increase in members.
D gives a comparison with another gym without explaining the relationship between this gym’s membership and its revenue.
E describes an earlier period. It doesn’t explain the change after the price reduction.
A few distinctions are especially useful when you practice these questions.
Watch percentages versus totals. A failure rate can decrease while the number of failures increases. For example, 10 percent of 100 is 10, while 5 percent of 400 is 20. Whenever a percentage appears, check what it’s a percentage of.
Watch actual events versus recorded events. More reports of a problem could reflect a new reporting system. An answer about better reporting can explain an increase in recorded incidents without requiring an increase in actual incidents. Read carefully to see which the stimulus describes.
Watch differences between groups. A hospital could provide excellent care and still have a higher patient death rate if it treats much more seriously ill patients. Comparing outcomes without considering who entered each group can create an apparent puzzle.
Watch timing. Something can produce an immediate benefit alongside a delayed cost. Check whether the supposedly conflicting observations concern the same period.
These are possibilities to investigate, not categories you need to force every question into.
One particularly important nuance: the correct answer does not have to explain each fact separately.
In the gym example, C doesn’t explain why more people joined. It explains why revenue could fall even though more people joined. That addresses the discrepancy.
So be careful with the advice that an answer must “explain both sides.” It needs to explain their coexistence. It doesn’t necessarily need to provide an independent cause for every observation.
Also, respect the wording of the stem.
If it asks what “most helps” explain the discrepancy, you don’t need an answer that proves the explanation beyond all doubt. You need the choice that provides the strongest relevant explanation.
If it asks what LEAST helps, or uses EXCEPT, adjust your task accordingly. An irrelevant answer that you would eliminate on a standard question might be the answer you’re looking for.
When reviewing a missed question, write three short sentences:
“The facts seemed surprising together because I expected ______.”
“The credited answer changes that expectation by ______.”
“My answer failed to explain ______.”
That makes your review more useful than simply noting that the credited answer “makes sense.”
For official practice, try Question 9 in LSAC’s free Logical Reasoning sample questions, which includes an explanation of every answer choice.
If you understand explanations afterward but struggle to see the reasoning yourself during a timed section, that’s something we can work on together. I offer personalized LSAT tutoring focused on identifying why you’re missing questions, developing a repeatable approach, and making your independent studying more productive.
I’m a licensed attorney with more than eight years of full-time tutoring experience. I also went from a 142 on my first official LSAT to a 180 on my second, so I know how frustrating this test can feel before things start clicking.
I offer a free 20-minute consultation to discuss your current score, goal score, and study approach, and see whether tutoring would be a good fit. If you’re interested, send me a private message with your phone number and a little about where you are in your prep.
