LSAT Writing Prompt Examples (With a Model Response)
Every LSAT Argumentative Writing prompt follows the same shape: a decision between two options, plus perspectives and criteria from the decision-maker, such as cost, reach, or long-term impact. You pick one option and argue for it in 50 minutes, 15 minutes of prewriting plus 35 minutes of writing, as of October 2026. There is no right answer. Both options are designed to be defensible, so what matters is a clear position, reasons drawn from the prompt, and a fair reply to the other side.
What does an LSAT writing prompt look like?
The real task is a structured decision, not an open-ended essay topic. You are given a situation, two courses of action, and several perspectives that supply the criteria the decision-maker cares about. Your job is to choose one option and defend it using only the material in the prompt. Outside facts, personal stories, and real-world examples do not help. The three examples below are original prompts written in that same shape, so you can practice without burning official material. They are not real LSAT prompts, and no real LSAT prompt is reproduced on this page.
Example 1: A bakery chooses between expanding and improving
Situation. Mara owns a bakery in a mid-sized city. After five profitable years, she has saved enough to make one major investment, but not both.
Option A. Open a second location across town, in a neighborhood with no bakery and heavy foot traffic from a nearby university.
Option B. Invest in the current shop: a larger oven, a second register, and seating for twenty more customers.
Perspectives. Mara's accountant warns that a second location doubles her fixed costs and depends on hiring a manager she trusts. Her head baker says the current shop already turns away orders on weekends because the oven is too small. A regular customer notes that students in the new neighborhood buy bread daily but are price-sensitive and loyal to a discount grocery nearby.
Decision criteria. Mara values steady, manageable growth over rapid expansion, and she wants to protect the quality that built her reputation.
Notice what the prompt hands you: a clear decision, two reasonable options, and criteria (steady growth, protected quality) that point toward one side without making the other side absurd. A second location is a real possibility, which is exactly what makes the choice worth arguing about.
Example 2: A school board weighs later start times
Situation. A school board is deciding whether to move high school start times from 7:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m.
Option A. Move the start time later, so students get more sleep on school nights.
Option B. Keep the 7:30 a.m. start and add a supervised study period at the end of the day.
Perspectives. A sleep researcher cites studies linking later starts to better attendance and alertness. The transportation director says later starts would require a second bus run, costing the district money it does not have. Coaches and employers warn that a later school day cuts into after-school practice and part-time jobs. A teacher notes that the current first period has the highest tardiness and lowest quiz scores in the school.
Decision criteria. The board values student learning first, but it must also stay within its transportation budget.
This prompt is useful practice because the strongest argument is not the one you personally agree with. It is the one that best fits the board's stated criteria, learning first, budget second. An essay that argues only from "teenagers need sleep" misses the budget constraint the prompt deliberately included.
Example 3: A town decides how to spend a grant
Situation. A small town has received a one-time grant that can fund exactly one project.
Option A. Renovate the town's aging library, which needs a new roof, accessible entrances, and updated computers.
Option B. Build a new riverside walking trail with lighting, benches, and a small event pavilion.
Perspectives. The librarian says library visits have grown every year and the building now closes on rainy days because of leaks. A parks volunteer argues the trail would draw visitors from neighboring towns and support local shops. A town council member notes the library serves residents year-round, while the trail is usable mainly in warmer months. A local business owner says foot traffic near the river has already risen since a cafe opened there.
Decision criteria. The council values year-round benefit to residents over seasonal tourism, and it prefers projects with low ongoing maintenance costs.
The trap in this prompt is the tourism argument. It sounds exciting, but the council's criteria favor year-round resident benefit and low maintenance. The essay that wins is the one that argues from the criteria, not the one that picks the more glamorous project.
A short model response to Example 1
This response picks Option B, improving the current shop. It is deliberately short, about 250 words, because a complete argument matters more than length. Read it for structure: decision first, two reasons tied to the criteria, a counterargument answered, then a close.
Mara should invest in her current bakery rather than open a second location. Her goal is steady, manageable growth that protects the quality her reputation rests on, and only Option B serves both aims at once.
First, the current shop is already losing sales it could capture. The head baker reports turning away weekend orders because the oven is too small, so a larger oven and a second register convert demand that already exists, without the risk of finding new customers. That is growth with a known payoff, not a bet.
Second, a second location threatens exactly what made the bakery successful. It doubles fixed costs and depends on a manager Mara has not yet found, while the new neighborhood's students are price-sensitive and loyal to a discount grocery. If the new shop undercuts quality or bleeds money, it damages the original shop's reputation too.
The case for expanding is real: a neighborhood with no bakery and heavy university foot traffic is a genuine opportunity. But opportunity is not the same as timing. Mara's savings cover one investment, and the expansion's risks, an unproven manager and a price-sensitive market, cut against her stated preference for steady growth. She can revisit a second location once the improved shop funds it.
Investing in the current shop grows revenue from existing demand, keeps quality under Mara's direct control, and leaves expansion as a later step, not a gamble. That is the right order for a business built on reputation.
Three things to copy from this model:
- The decision comes first. The reader knows the position in the opening sentence. Nothing is buried.
- Every reason traces back to the prompt. Weekend orders, the missing manager, price-sensitive students: all of it comes from the perspectives, not from outside knowledge.
- The counterargument is named, not ignored. The fourth paragraph concedes the expansion opportunity is real, then explains why timing makes it the wrong move now. That reply is what makes the essay credible.
How to practice with these prompts
Two or three timed essays are enough for most test takers. Argumentative Writing is required, but it is unscored, so it should not eat into the Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension work that actually moves your score. Practice with the same split you will face on test day, and grade yourself on structure, not prose:
- 15 minutes of prewriting. Read the prompt, note the criteria, pick a side, and outline: decision, two reasons in order of strength, the best point for the other side plus your reply.
- 35 minutes of writing. Follow the five-part shape from the model above. Save the last few minutes to reread for missing words and sentences that say the opposite of what you meant.
- Self-check. Did you state a position early? Did both reasons come from the prompt's criteria? Did you answer the other side? If those three boxes are checked, the essay is doing its job.
For the full timing plan and the mistakes that weaken most essays, see our LSAT Argumentative Writing tips. For how the writing section fits into the whole test day, including total test length, see how long the LSAT is.
A stale-format trap to watch for
Many pages ranking for writing-prompt searches still describe the retired format, including guides that say the essay takes 35 minutes in total. As of October 2026, the current format is 50 minutes: 15 minutes of prewriting plus 35 minutes of writing. If a guide tells you to plan for 35 minutes total, it predates the current Argumentative Writing format, and its timing advice will leave you short.
Frequently asked questions
What does an LSAT writing prompt look like?
You get a decision between two options, plus perspectives and criteria from the decision-maker, such as cost, reach, or long-term impact. You choose one option and argue for it, using only the material in the prompt.
Are the example prompts on this page real LSAT prompts?
No. They are original examples written in the same shape as the real task, so you can practice without using up official material. Actual LSAT prompts are owned by LSAC and are not reproduced here.
Is there a right answer to an LSAT writing prompt?
No. Both options are designed to be defensible. What matters is whether you take a clear position, support it with reasons drawn from the prompt, and handle the other side fairly.
How long do you get for LSAT Argumentative Writing?
50 minutes in total as of October 2026: 15 minutes of prewriting followed by 35 minutes of writing. Older guides that say 35 minutes total describe a retired format.
Do law schools read the writing sample?
They receive it with your application. It is unscored and does not affect your 120 to 180 score, but it is required, and your score is not released until an approved sample is on file.
How should I practice with these example prompts?
Time yourself: 15 minutes to outline, 35 minutes to write. Then check structure, not prose: a position stated early, two reasons tied to the prompt's criteria, and a fair reply to the other side. Two or three timed essays are enough for most test takers.