VIPLSATCracking LSAT makes you a VIP.

Logical Reasoning · Paradox

PrepTest 124 · Section 2 · Question 1

Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type
Paradox
The one idea it tests
Two facts seem to fight: a cause was stopped, yet its result is still around. Find the fact that lets both be true.
The basic logic
Side one: the thing was stopped a long time ago. Side two: its leftovers are still showing up now. The handshake answer explains how a result can outlive the cause, for example because it lingers or keeps resurfacing long after the cause ends.
Tiny words that decide it
  • “banned”
  • “still”
  • “currently”

Playground logic

Lulu is puzzled: Biscuit was banned from the couch months ago, yet fur still covers it every day. The handshake fact is that fur buried deep in the cushions keeps working its way out for months. Both sides shake hands: no new dog visits, old fur still shows up.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Couch That Would Not Quit

In September, Mom made a rule: Biscuit stays off the couch. Biscuit sulked, but he obeyed. He sleeps in his basket now, and Lulu has checked every night with her clipboard. Yet here it is December, and every morning the couch has fresh golden dog hair on it. Marcus put on his detective hat. 'Clear case. Biscuit sneaks up at midnight.' Lulu shook her head. 'I set out a tower of blocks on the cushion. Not one fell.' Priya sipped her juice box and pressed a cushion. A little puff of golden fluff floated up. 'All that fur from the summer got pushed deep into the stuffing,' she said. 'Every time someone sits down, a bit more squeezes out. The rule worked. The fur is just leftovers taking the slow way out.'

Step 3 · Try the model question

Biscuit has not been allowed on the couch since September, and a careful check shows he has obeyed. Yet in December, new dog hair keeps appearing on the couch every day.

Which choice, if it were true, would best clear up this puzzle?

Choices

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Lingering Glitter

Judge Park frowned. 'The town banned glitter frosting two years ago. The inspector found glitter on this bakery's counter last week. Explain.' Mr. Whitfield snapped his suspenders. 'Your Honor, my client stopped using glitter the day of the ban. Receipts prove it.' The inspector crossed her arms. 'Then why is it still there?' Mr. Whitfield held up a cleaning manual. 'Because glitter is famous for hiding in cracks and seams for years after you stop using it. Old glitter, not new frosting.' The judge nodded slowly. 'So the ban was obeyed, and the glitter is a leftover. Both things are true.' Case dismissed, with a strong suggestion to buy a better vacuum.

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 1 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Name the two sides: the cause ended long ago, and the result is present now. Ask what could make both true at once. Run the Handshake Test on each choice: does it explain how the result survives after the cause stopped? Toss choices that speak to only one side, that add unrelated facts, or that make the gap even harder to explain. The winner keeps both sides true and connects them.