Hey everyone, I'm Yousuf. You might have come across some of my posts on Reddit as TheLawgicTutor. I figured I'd share some of that info here as well:

I wanted to share a question that came up in a tutoring session recently, because it highlights a really common trap I see on specific LSAT questions.

This applies most directly to "Provable Questions", (MSS, Must Be True, Inference, etc). On these, the correct answer should follow almost directly from the stimulus. You're not being asked to decide what makes sense, what's a good idea, or what someone ought to do. You're just identifying what is actually supported by the facts given, and nothing more.

Most trap answers on provable questions fail in the same way: they go a bit too far. They predict slightly too much, stretch the scope of the passage, or assume something that isn't 100% backed by the stimulus.

The specific trap answer I want to highlight today is the word "should".

When an answer choice says someone "should" do something, it's making a recommendation or prescription. That's a very powerful statement and is usually too far beyond what the stimulus proves. Unless the stimulus explicitly makes a recommendation, seeing the word "should" on an answer choice should be an immediate red flag.

Take a look at the question below. Notice that every wrong answer uses the word "should", while the correct answer uses much weaker and more careful language. That type of phrasing is what you should be looking for in provable questions.