In this episode of LSAT Logic Applied, Andrew Leahey breaks down one of the most tested—and most misunderstood—skills on the LSAT: inference questions. Using a recent scientific claim about prehistoric humans shaping European ecosystems, Andrew walks through how Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) works both on the exam and in real-world research reporting.
You’ll learn:
The difference between Must Be True and Most Strongly Supported questions
Why “better explanatory fit” does not automatically equal proven causation
How LSAT inference questions punish strength creep and outside knowledge
The hidden assumption that connects model improvement to real-world causation
How to spot when an argument quietly shifts from data to explanation
This episode is especially useful if you’ve ever struggled with inference questions—or if you’ve noticed how often headlines slide from “associated with” to “therefore caused by.”
You don’t need to be studying for the LSAT to benefit. This is about sharpening your reasoning in a world full of confident conclusions.
If you enjoy the show, subscribe and share. New episodes apply clean LSAT logic to messy real-world claims.
