VIPLSATCracking LSAT makes you a VIP.

Logical Reasoning · Inference (Complete the Argument)

PrepTest 129 · Section 2 · Question 2

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

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type
Inference (Complete the Argument)
The one idea it tests
Finish the argument with the conclusion its premises are already pointing at.
The basic logic
Spot the chain: an activity causes a tiredness that lasts longer than a day, and being fresh at a big event matters. The blank must connect those two links into a sensible 'so,' with no extra claims and no stronger wording than the premises allow.
Tiny words that decide it
  • “since”
  • “more than”
  • “should not”

Playground logic

Owen's patty: marathon gaming leaves him foggy for more than a day, and being sharp at the swim meet matters. The missing top bun just snaps those together: skip the marathon gaming on the day right before a meet.

Step 2 · The kid story

Owen's Foggy Fins

Owen loves two things: swimming and a video game called Robot Llama Rescue. When he plays it for hours in a row, his brain feels like soggy cereal for more than a day. On Saturday, Owen had a swim meet. On Friday, he played Robot Llama Rescue from lunch until bedtime. At the meet, he dove in, forgot which stroke he was swimming, and did half a lap of something Priya called 'the confused octopus.' Priya sipped her juice box. "Long gaming makes you foggy for over a day. You need a clear head at meets. So..." Lulu finished it on her clipboard: "So no marathon gaming the day before a meet!" Owen sighed. "Can I at least name my goggles Robot Llama?" "Yes," said Priya.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Long gaming sessions leave Owen foggy for more than a day, while short sessions do not. Owen needs a clear head at swim meets. So, ______.

Which one of these best finishes Priya's argument?

Choices

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Drowsy Juror

Judge Park banged her gavel. "Juror Number Four, you snored through the closing arguments." The juror blinked. "Sorry, Your Honor. I ran a pancake-eating contest the night before. Forty pancakes leave me sleepy for more than a day." Mr. Whitfield raised a finger. "Your Honor, if I may. Pancake contests cause sleepiness that lasts more than a day. Jurors must be alert in court. So the conclusion writes itself." "Which is?" "No pancake contests the day before jury duty." The judge nodded. "Not 'no pancakes ever,' Mr. Whitfield?" "No, Your Honor. The evidence only reaches the day before. I would never overreach on pancakes."

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 129, Section 2, Question 2 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Read the premises leading up to the blank and name each link in your own words, especially how long an effect lasts and when freshness matters. Predict the conclusion before looking. Then pick the choice that joins those links with the same scope: no bigger claims, no new comparisons, no new groups. Eliminate choices that add facts the premises never gave.