📚 Education
LSAT Logical Reasoning Practice Item Writer for Tutors: Original Stimulus Arguments, Question Stem Families from Flaw to Parallel Reasoning, Five Answer Choices with Named Distractor Traps, Difficulty Levers, and Explanations
Write original LSAT style Logical Reasoning practice items for a tutoring program: a short argument stimulus, a stem from the right question family, one defensible credited answer, four wrong answers built on named traps such as too strong, reversal, and out of scope, a planned difficulty level, and a teaching explanation for every choice.
0Reviews
Prompt
Act as an LSAT item writer and tutor who writes original Logical Reasoning practice items for a prep course, knows the test now has two scored Logical Reasoning sections and no logic games, and never copies or paraphrases released LSAC questions. Inputs: - Question families to write (for example necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, strengthen, weaken, flaw, must be true, most strongly supported, principle, parallel reasoning, parallel flaw, resolve the paradox, main conclusion, role of a statement, point at issue): [QuestionFamilies] - Number of items and target difficulty for each (easy, medium, hard): [ItemPlan] - Stimulus topic areas to rotate (science, law, business, arts, policy, everyday): [TopicAreas] - Student weaknesses the set should target: [StudentProfile] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. An item map from ItemPlan and QuestionFamilies: item number, family, topic from TopicAreas, difficulty, and the reasoning skill or flaw pattern it tests (for example correlation treated as causation, sampling problem, conditional reversal, part to whole). 2. For each item, an original stimulus of 50 to 110 words written in neutral LSAT register: a conclusion, premises, and indicator words where the family needs them. Paradox items present two facts that seem to conflict; must be true items contain no argument at all. 3. A stem worded the way the family is normally asked, including EXCEPT or principle phrasing when planned. 4. Five answer choices labeled A to E: one credited answer that is defensible line by line, and four distractors each built on a named trap: out of scope, too strong, reversal of a conditional, opposite effect, true but irrelevant, half right, or restates a premise. 5. Difficulty levers per item: for hard items use abstract language, a tempting distractor that repeats stimulus wording, or a credited answer phrased indirectly; for easy items keep the conclusion explicit. 6. An explanation for every choice: why the credited answer works in one or two sentences tied to the stimulus, and the trap name plus a one line reason for each wrong answer. 7. A short tutor note per item linking it to StudentProfile: what the student should underline or diagram first. 8. A quality check table: one credited answer only, answer letter positions balanced across the set, no outside knowledge required, stimulus word count in range. Constraints: - Every stimulus, stem, and answer must be original. Never reproduce or paraphrase a released LSAC item, and do not claim items are official. - Use five answer choices every time. No em dashes.
Instructions
Replace every [bracket] with your details before running. Works on ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini.
Generated Output
This image was generated using the prompt above.
Examples
Example Input
QuestionFamilies: flaw, necessary assumption ItemPlan: 2 items, item 1 medium flaw, item 2 hard necessary assumption TopicAreas: urban policy, marine biology StudentProfile: picks "too strong" answers on assumption questions and misses sampling flaws Format: student page then answer key with explanations
Example Output
ITEM MAP | # | Family | Topic | Difficulty | Tests | | 1 | Flaw | Urban policy | Medium | Unrepresentative sample | | 2 | Necessary assumption | Marine biology | Hard | Gap between a cause and an alternative cause | STUDENT PAGE 1. City council member: Last spring our transit office surveyed riders waiting at the downtown express bus stops during the morning rush, and 82 percent of those who answered said they would ride more often if fares were cut. So cutting fares would increase ridership across the whole bus system, including the neighborhood routes. The reasoning in the council member's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it (A) assumes that a fare cut is the only way to increase ridership (B) draws a conclusion about all riders from a group that may not represent them (C) fails to consider that some riders pay reduced fares already (D) relies on a survey taken during a single season (E) confuses a desire to ride more with a commitment to pay more 2. Marine biologist: Kelp forests off this coast shrank by half over the past decade. During the same period, purple sea urchins, which graze on kelp, increased sharply after a disease killed most of the sea stars that eat them. Therefore the urchin increase, rather than warmer water, is the main cause of the kelp loss. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? (A) Warmer water has never harmed kelp anywhere. (B) Sea stars eat nothing other than purple sea urchins. (C) The warming that occurred was not enough by itself to account for most of the kelp loss. (D) Kelp forests will recover once sea star populations return. (E) Purple sea urchins graze more heavily in warm water than in cold water. ANSWER KEY 1. Credited: B. The survey covered only downtown express riders, yet the conclusion covers the whole system. (A) Out of scope: the argument never claims exclusivity. (C) True but irrelevant: reduced fares do not touch the sample problem. (D) Half right: a seasonal issue is possible, but the stronger flaw is who was surveyed, not when. (E) Reversal of the issue: the argument does not mention paying more. Tutor note: underline "downtown express" and "whole bus system" first. This targets the missed sampling flaw. 2. Credited: C. To prefer urchins over warming as the main cause, the argument needs warming not to explain most of the loss. Negate it: if warming alone could account for most of the loss, the conclusion falls apart. (A) Too strong: "never anywhere" is not required. This is the student's usual trap. (B) Too strong: sea stars may eat other prey and the argument still works. (D) Out of scope: future recovery is not part of the reasoning. (E) Half right: it links the two causes but the argument does not need it. Tutor note: run the negation test on each choice before picking. Strong words like "never" and "only" rarely appear in necessary assumptions. QUALITY CHECK | Item | One credited answer | Outside knowledge needed | Stimulus words | | 1 | Yes | No | 53 | | 2 | Yes | No | 55 | Answer letters so far: B, C. Balance across the rest of the set.