{"name":"LSAT Skill Taxonomy (Pinaka)","version":"v1","lastUpdated":"2026-05-20","citation":"LSAT Skill Taxonomy (Pinaka) v1, 2026-05-20, https://mypinaka.com/lsat/taxonomy","layers":{"layer1":{"description":"Twenty-one marketing-tier skill nodes. Each has its own landing page at /lsat/[slug].","nodes":[{"code":"NA","slug":"necessary-assumption","name":"Necessary assumption","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/necessary-assumption","subPatterns":[{"name":"Chain-link bridge","description":"X causes Y, Y causes Z, therefore X causes Z. The NA secures the Y-to-Z link regardless of how Y was produced."},{"name":"Modal qualifier","description":"The argument leans on a word like \"must,\" \"could,\" or \"always.\" The NA pins the modality to this case."},{"name":"Bridge term","description":"A word in the conclusion is missing from the premises. The NA introduces it so the conclusion follows."},{"name":"Alternative-cause exclusion","description":"The argument names one cause. The NA rules out a competing cause that would explain the same evidence."}]},{"code":"SA","slug":"sufficient-assumption","name":"Sufficient assumption","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/sufficient-assumption","subPatterns":[{"name":"Bridge term","description":"A word in the conclusion is missing from the premises. The SA introduces it and connects the two."},{"name":"Universal premise","description":"A universal claim of the form \"Any X is Y\" or \"All X are Y\" that, combined with the premises, forces the conclusion."},{"name":"Conditional chain","description":"A conditional of the form \"If X, then Y\" that links a premise to the conclusion. Often the answer extends a partial conditional already in the argument."},{"name":"Quantifier match","description":"The premises use one quantifier (some, most, all) and the conclusion uses another. The SA closes the gap by introducing the matching quantifier."}]},{"code":"ST","slug":"strengthen","name":"Strengthen","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/strengthen","subPatterns":[{"name":"Reinforces the causal link","description":"When an argument claims X causes Y, the strengthener confirms the causal mechanism. Often by ruling out coincidence or by showing X-Y co-occur in additional cases."},{"name":"Eliminates a counter-cause","description":"When an alternative explanation is plausible, the strengthener rules it out. The argument now stands without competition."},{"name":"Provides a parallel case","description":"When the argument generalizes from a sample, the strengthener confirms the sample resembles the target. The analogy holds."},{"name":"Adds confirming evidence","description":"When the argument rests on one piece of evidence, the strengthener supplies a second that points the same way."}]},{"code":"WK","slug":"weaken","name":"Weaken","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/weaken","subPatterns":[{"name":"Alternative cause","description":"When the argument claims X causes Y, the weakener supplies a different cause that could explain Y just as well. The original causal claim now competes."},{"name":"Counter-evidence","description":"When the argument rests on a piece of evidence, the weakener provides counter-evidence. Often timing-based: the effect appeared before the supposed cause."},{"name":"Reversed correlation","description":"When the argument assumes X causes Y, the weakener suggests Y might actually cause X. The correlation is real, the direction is wrong."},{"name":"Sample bias","description":"When the argument generalizes from a sample, the weakener shows the sample is unrepresentative. The generalization fails."}]},{"code":"FL","slug":"flaw","name":"Flaw","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/flaw","subPatterns":[{"name":"Necessary vs sufficient","description":"The argument treats a necessary condition as if it were sufficient (or vice versa). \"X is required for Y\" is read as \"X guarantees Y.\" The conclusion overshoots."},{"name":"Correlation vs causation","description":"The argument observes that X and Y co-occur and concludes that X causes Y. The argument fails to consider an alternative cause, reverse causation, or coincidence."},{"name":"Equivocation","description":"The argument uses a key term in two different senses. The conclusion follows only if the term is held to one sense, but the premises use the other."},{"name":"Hasty generalization","description":"The argument generalizes from too few cases or an unrepresentative sample. The conclusion outruns the evidence."}]},{"code":"IN","slug":"inference","name":"Inference","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/inference","subPatterns":[{"name":"Must-be-true deduction","description":"The statements together entail the answer with certainty. The answer cannot be false given the premises. No outside information is used."},{"name":"Modal-qualifier inference","description":"The statements use hedged language (\"most,\" \"some,\" \"rarely,\" \"could\"). The right answer respects the modals in the premises. Distractors strengthen or weaken the modals without warrant."},{"name":"Partial-overlap inference","description":"Two statements share a term. The overlap lets you combine them to produce a new true statement. The right answer names what lies in the intersection."},{"name":"Conditional chain","description":"A series of conditionals (\"If A, then B; if B, then C\") that can be chained into a new conditional (\"If A, then C\"). The right answer is the terminal step in the chain."}]},{"code":"PR","slug":"principle","name":"Principle","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/principle","subPatterns":[{"name":"Principle-supports-argument","description":"You are given a specific argument and asked to find a general principle that supports or justifies it. This acts like Strengthen. The principle makes the argument's reasoning more defensible. The right answer is abstract and general."},{"name":"Case-matches-principle","description":"You are given a general principle and asked which specific case falls under it. This acts like Sufficient Assumption. You test each choice against the principle's conditions to see which satisfies them."},{"name":"Principle-identifies-flaw","description":"You are given an argument and asked which principle shows what is wrong with it. This acts like Flaw. The principle names the error; the argument commits the error."},{"name":"Principle-justifies-judgment","description":"You are given a judgment (a conclusion) and asked which principle justifies reaching it from a stated situation. The right answer is the general rule that connects the situation to the judgment."}]},{"code":"PX","slug":"paradox","name":"Paradox","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/paradox","subPatterns":[{"name":"Browsing-only traffic","description":"New visitors come for a non-book reason and do not purchase books, so traffic rises while sales stay flat."},{"name":"Temporal displacement","description":"The new traffic arrives at times when book buyers are absent, leaving total book-buyer count unchanged."},{"name":"Category offset","description":"Gains in one product or customer segment are cancelled by equal losses in another, masking the net effect."},{"name":"External-force cancellation","description":"A concurrent external factor suppresses sales independently of the traffic change, producing a net-zero result."},{"name":"Measurement artifact","description":"The two metrics are measured differently or over different populations, making the apparent contradiction a data artefact rather than a real one."}]},{"code":"PA","slug":"parallel-reasoning","name":"Parallel reasoning","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/parallel-reasoning","subPatterns":[{"name":"Same logical form","description":"The valid argument in the stimulus uses a specific deductive or inductive structure. The right answer uses the identical structure with different content."},{"name":"Same flaw","description":"The stimulus commits a named logical error. The right answer commits the same error in a different domain. Both the error type and its direction must match."},{"name":"Valid deductive parallel","description":"The stimulus argument is deductively valid. The right answer is also deductively valid using the same conditional or categorical structure."},{"name":"Conditional parallel","description":"The stimulus contains an explicit conditional (\"If X, then Y\"). The right answer uses the same conditional form, chained in the same direction."}]},{"code":"MP","slug":"main-point","name":"Main point","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/main-point","subPatterns":[{"name":"Conclusion at start","description":"The main conclusion is stated in the first sentence; the remaining sentences are premises. Signal words: \"therefore,\" \"so,\" \"thus\" are absent at the start; the premises follow with \"because,\" \"since,\" \"given that.\""},{"name":"Conclusion at end","description":"The main conclusion appears in the last sentence, after all the premises have been laid out. Signal words: \"therefore,\" \"so,\" \"thus,\" \"hence,\" \"consequently\" typically precede the final sentence."},{"name":"Sub-conclusion trap","description":"The argument contains an intermediate claim that is supported by some premises and that in turn supports the main conclusion. The sub-conclusion often appears late in the argument, making it easy to mistake for the main point."},{"name":"Nested argument","description":"Two or more layers of conclusion-support chains. The inner layer produces a sub-conclusion. The outer layer uses that sub-conclusion as a premise to reach the true main conclusion."}]},{"code":"MOR","slug":"method-of-reasoning","name":"Method of reasoning","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/method-of-reasoning","subPatterns":[{"name":"Premises-and-conclusion description","description":"The argument states evidence and draws a conclusion from it. The MOR answer names both: \"uses evidence of X to conclude Y.\" The most common sub-pattern."},{"name":"Counter-argument response","description":"The argument acknowledges an opposing claim and then responds to it. The MOR answer names both the concession and the response: \"concedes X but argues that Y.\""},{"name":"Analogy deployment","description":"The argument supports its claim by drawing a parallel to another case. The MOR answer names this: \"supports the conclusion by drawing an analogy to X.\""},{"name":"Evidence-to-claim description","description":"The argument cites a specific example or data point and uses it to support a broader generalization. The MOR answer names the inductive move."},{"name":"Most-useful-to-evaluate scan","description":"Argument Evaluation stems ask which fact would most help evaluate the argument. The method is to identify the argument's weakest inferential link, then scan choices for a fact that bears directly on that link. Argument Evaluation is taught as a sub-section of Method of Reasoning because both skills require mapping argument structure before selecting an answer."}]},{"code":"ROLE","slug":"role-in-argument","name":"Role in argument","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/role-in-argument","subPatterns":[{"name":"Premise","description":"A fact or assertion offered as direct support for the main conclusion. Removing it weakens the argument."},{"name":"Sub-conclusion","description":"A statement that is supported by at least one premise and itself supports the main conclusion. It is both a conclusion and a premise depending on which direction you look."},{"name":"Main conclusion","description":"The final claim the entire argument is built to support. It is not a premise for anything else in the argument."},{"name":"Opposing view","description":"A position the arguer does not hold, presented to set up a refutation or contrast. The arguer neither accepts nor endorses it."},{"name":"Concession-then-distinguish","description":"The arguer acknowledges a counter-consideration that appears to undercut the conclusion, then defuses it by showing it does not apply to the case at hand. The concession is not a premise for the main conclusion. It is a defensive move."}]},{"code":"PD","slug":"point-of-disagreement","name":"Point of disagreement","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/point-of-disagreement","subPatterns":[{"name":"Direct contradiction","description":"Speaker 1 asserts X. Speaker 2 explicitly denies X, or asserts not-X. Both have stated positions. The disagreement is explicit."},{"name":"Implied contradiction","description":"Speaker 1 asserts X. Speaker 2 does not deny X directly but commits to a position that logically requires not-X. The disagreement is derivable from what each speaker says."},{"name":"Scope disagreement","description":"Both speakers agree about some cases but disagree about whether the claim holds universally or only in limited cases. The disagreement is about the scope, not the direction."},{"name":"Shared premises, different conclusions","description":"Both speakers cite similar evidence but draw opposite conclusions from it. The disagreement is not about the facts but about what the facts imply."}]},{"code":"POA","slug":"point-of-agreement","name":"Point of agreement","family":"LR","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/point-of-agreement","subPatterns":[{"name":"Direct shared endorsement","description":"Both speakers explicitly state or assert the same claim. No inference is required. Both positions are readable from the text of each speech."},{"name":"Implied shared endorsement","description":"Neither speaker states the claim outright, but both speakers commit to positions that logically require the claim to be true. The agreement is derivable from what each speaker says."},{"name":"Agree on grounds but not conclusion","description":"Both speakers accept the same evidence or premise but draw different conclusions from it. The agreement is limited to the shared factual ground. Picking the conclusion either speaker draws is the trap."},{"name":"Agree on conclusion but not grounds","description":"Both speakers reach the same conclusion but for different reasons. The agreement is on the conclusion, not the path to it. Picking one speaker's grounds as the shared claim is the trap."}]},{"code":"RC-MAIN","slug":"rc-main-point","name":"RC main point","family":"RC","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/rc-main-point","subPatterns":[{"name":"Thesis identification","description":"The passage states a single central claim. The right answer is that claim, paraphrased. Distractors are sub-claims used to support it."},{"name":"Author's stance vs others'","description":"The passage describes one or more views and the author takes a side. The right answer captures the author's side, not the views the author opposes."},{"name":"Comparative analysis","description":"The passage weighs alternatives without choosing. The right answer captures the act of weighing, not one alternative."},{"name":"Single-event focus","description":"The passage describes one phenomenon and its significance. The right answer captures both the phenomenon and the significance."}]},{"code":"RC-PUR","slug":"rc-primary-purpose","name":"RC primary purpose","family":"RC","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/rc-primary-purpose","subPatterns":[{"name":"Describe/inform","description":"The author conveys information without arguing for a position. The passage presents a situation, a process, or a set of facts. The right answer starts with \"describe\" or \"explain.\" Distractors often substitute \"argue\" or \"defend.\""},{"name":"Advocate/argue","description":"The author takes a position and supports it with evidence or reasoning. The right answer starts with \"argue\" or \"defend.\" Distractors often substitute \"describe\" or \"evaluate,\" underselling the author's assertiveness."},{"name":"Critique/evaluate","description":"The author examines a position or practice and identifies its weaknesses or merits. The right answer starts with \"critique,\" \"assess,\" or \"evaluate.\" Distractors often frame the passage as pure description when the author takes a clear stance on what is being evaluated."},{"name":"Compare/contrast","description":"The author sets two or more positions or approaches side by side. The right answer captures the act of comparison. Distractors often credit only one side of the comparison, missing the structural device."}]},{"code":"RC-DET","slug":"rc-detail","name":"RC detail","family":"RC","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/rc-detail","subPatterns":[{"name":"Quote verification","description":"The right answer matches a specific phrase from the passage. Distractors swap a key word. Match the noun, the verb, the qualifier; not just the topic."},{"name":"Paraphrase match","description":"The right answer rewords a passage statement accurately. Distractors paraphrase but shift meaning. Read for what the paraphrase preserves and what it changes."},{"name":"Off-by-one detail","description":"The right answer captures one specific detail. Distractors mix two adjacent details (e.g., the passage states X about weekday and Y about weekend; a distractor states X about weekend)."},{"name":"Implication vs assertion","description":"The passage implies something. A distractor asserts it. Detail rewards what the passage states, not what it leaves to inference. Inferences belong on Inference questions."}]},{"code":"RC-INF","slug":"rc-inference","name":"RC inference","family":"RC","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/rc-inference","subPatterns":[{"name":"Modal-qualifier inference","description":"The passage uses a modal cue (\"could,\" \"must,\" \"always,\" \"rarely\"). The right answer respects the modal. Distractors swap the modal for a stronger or weaker one."},{"name":"Author-attitude inference","description":"The passage signals the author's stance through word choice or framing. The right answer captures that stance. Distractors invert it or overstate it."},{"name":"Cross-paragraph inference","description":"The right answer combines information from two paragraphs the test-taker must connect. The passage states neither half alone; the inference lives in the join."},{"name":"Negation inference","description":"The passage tells you what the author rejects. The right answer states something the author would deny if asked. Distractors are merely unaddressed."}]},{"code":"RC-ATT","slug":"rc-author-attitude","name":"RC author attitude","family":"RC","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/rc-author-attitude","subPatterns":[{"name":"Strong endorsement","description":"The author argues that the subject is clearly correct or clearly admirable, without qualification. The passage uses assertive, positive language and does not introduce doubt."},{"name":"Qualified endorsement","description":"The author admires or approves of the subject but withholds full endorsement. Hedges like \"worth noting,\" \"unusual,\" or \"an exception\" signal this stance. The most commonly tested sub-pattern."},{"name":"Neutral description","description":"The author reports without evaluating. No stance is visible. Word choice is flat and no passage sentence commits to a judgment. This is often a distractor on passages where the author is actually mildly positive."},{"name":"Qualified skepticism","description":"The author doubts or questions the subject but does not condemn it. Language like \"it is unclear whether,\" \"the evidence does not yet support,\" or \"has not been demonstrated\" marks this stance."},{"name":"Strong skepticism","description":"The author is plainly critical or dismissive. The passage uses language like \"fails to,\" \"is undermined by,\" or \"cannot account for.\" This stance requires consistent negative framing across the passage, not a single critical sentence."}]},{"code":"RC-FUNC","slug":"rc-function","name":"RC function","family":"RC","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/rc-function","subPatterns":[{"name":"Structural-support function","description":"The element provides evidence or reasoning that directly supports the passage's main argument. It moves the argument forward. The right answer names it as support, evidence, or substantiation for the overall thesis."},{"name":"Illustrative-example function","description":"The element gives a concrete case that clarifies or demonstrates a more abstract principle or claim made elsewhere in the passage. The right answer names it as an example, illustration, or application."},{"name":"Concession function","description":"The element acknowledges a contrary view, an exception, or a limitation. The author includes it to show awareness of the opposing position before returning to the main argument. The right answer uses words like \"concedes,\" \"acknowledges,\" \"notes a limitation,\" or \"recognizes an objection.\""},{"name":"Qualification function","description":"The element narrows or restricts a claim made elsewhere in the passage. It does not contradict the claim; it specifies under what conditions the claim holds. The right answer names the restricting or narrowing role."}]},{"code":"RC-COMP","slug":"rc-comparative","name":"RC comparative passages","family":"RC","url":"https://mypinaka.com/lsat/rc-comparative","subPatterns":[{"name":"Relationship between passages","description":"The question asks how the two passages relate overall: agreement, disagreement, one extends the other, one rebuts the other, or one provides evidence the other interprets differently."},{"name":"Inference across both","description":"The right answer combines commitments from both passages. Neither passage alone supports the answer. The trap is an answer supported by one passage but contradicted or unaddressed by the other."},{"name":"Function of element in both","description":"A specific piece of evidence or claim appears in both passages. The question asks what function it serves in each. A piece of evidence can serve opposite functions in two passages that take opposing positions."},{"name":"Comparative main point","description":"The question asks for the main point of each passage, or asks which choice captures what both passages are about. Both skeletons must match the credited answer."},{"name":"Author attitude across both","description":"The question asks about one author's attitude toward the subject, toward a specific claim, or toward the other passage. Attitude is signaled by word choice, by what the author endorses or qualifies, not by what the author merely describes."},{"name":"Primary purpose across both","description":"The question asks the primary purpose of each passage or asks which choice describes both authors' purpose. Purpose answers describe what the author is doing (arguing, analyzing, rebutting, illustrating) rather than what the passage is about."},{"name":"Analogy/application to both","description":"The question presents a scenario and asks which passage author would view it more favorably, or how the scenario applies to the arguments of both. Map the scenario against each skeleton before evaluating choices."}]}]},"layer2":{"description":"The deep 77-node skill tree drives the adaptive drill engine and the mock test assembler. The canonical source lives in pinaka-content-tools/prashna/profiles/lsat/skill_tree.yaml. The marketing-tier nodes above map to parent nodes in the deep tree; sub-patterns above map approximately to drillable children.","deepTreeSource":"pinaka-content-tools/prashna/profiles/lsat/skill_tree.yaml (Pinaka content vault repository, v1, last updated 2026-05-15)"}},"trapCanon":[{"code":"too_strong","label":"Too strong","description":"The answer overshoots what the argument or passage actually supports. Common with words like \"only,\" \"always,\" \"must,\" \"guarantee.\"","group":"magnitude","appearsOn":["NA","SA","IN","PR","PD","POA","RC-MAIN","RC-PUR","RC-INF","RC-ATT"]},{"code":"too_narrow","label":"Too narrow","description":"The answer captures one element of the argument or passage correctly but misses the broader point. Often a true detail mistaken for the main claim.","group":"magnitude","appearsOn":["NA","SA","PR","POA","RC-MAIN","RC-DET","RC-INF"]},{"code":"too_weak","label":"Too weak","description":"The answer is true but does not do enough work to support, strengthen, weaken, or close the argument. Common on SA and Strengthen items where the answer falls short of the gap.","group":"magnitude","appearsOn":["SA","ST","WK","PR"]},{"code":"out_of_scope","label":"Out of scope","description":"The answer addresses a claim or context the argument did not raise. Often topically related but structurally irrelevant.","group":"scope","appearsOn":["NA","SA","ST","WK","FL","IN","PR","MOR","PD","POA","RC-DET","RC-INF"]},{"code":"irrelevant_distinction","label":"Irrelevant distinction","description":"The answer draws a comparison or distinction that does not bear on the argument. Often pulled in by a topical hook.","group":"scope","appearsOn":["ST","WK","IN","PR","PD"]},{"code":"irrelevant_comparison","label":"Irrelevant comparison","description":"The answer compares Pinaka to some other entity in a way the argument does not require. Common Strengthen and Weaken distractor.","group":"scope","appearsOn":["ST","WK","NA"]},{"code":"reversed_logic","label":"Reversed logic","description":"The answer runs the conditional or causal direction backwards. Affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or treating effect as cause.","group":"direction","appearsOn":["NA","SA","ST","WK","FL","IN","PR","POA"]},{"code":"reverse_direction","label":"Reverse direction","description":"On Strengthen and Weaken, the answer moves the argument the opposite direction from what the question asks. The answer is plausible; it is just on the wrong side.","group":"direction","appearsOn":["ST","WK","PA"]},{"code":"addresses_premise_not_conclusion","label":"Addresses premise, not conclusion","description":"The answer engages with a premise the argument used but does not affect the conclusion. A common Strengthen and Weaken distractor on causal arguments.","group":"structure","appearsOn":["ST","WK","IN","NA"]},{"code":"partial_match","label":"Partial match","description":"The answer matches part of the argument or passage but misses or distorts another part. On MOR and Parallel Reasoning, the trap describes one of the moves correctly and one incorrectly.","group":"structure","appearsOn":["IN","PR","PA","MOR","POA","RC-MAIN","RC-INF","RC-DET"]},{"code":"confuses_premise_for_conclusion","label":"Confuses premise for conclusion","description":"On Role and Main Point, the answer picks a premise where the question asks for the conclusion (or vice versa). Often pulls students who read structure carelessly.","group":"structure","appearsOn":["MP","ROLE"]},{"code":"confuses_subconclusion_for_main","label":"Confuses sub-conclusion for main","description":"On Main Point, the answer is a sub-conclusion (a claim the argument uses to reach a later, broader conclusion). Top miss on multi-layer LR arguments.","group":"structure","appearsOn":["MP","ROLE"]},{"code":"similar_topic_wrong_structure","label":"Similar topic, wrong structure","description":"On Parallel Reasoning, the answer shares topic or domain with the stimulus but uses a different logical structure. Top trap on PA items.","group":"structure","appearsOn":["PA"]},{"code":"misnames_flaw","label":"Misnames the flaw","description":"On Flaw, the answer correctly identifies that the argument is flawed but mislabels the flaw. Picks \"correlation versus causation\" on a necessary-versus-sufficient flaw, for example.","group":"structure","appearsOn":["FL"]},{"code":"paragraph_reversal","label":"Paragraph reversal","description":"On RC, the answer describes a real claim from the passage but attributes it to the wrong paragraph or the wrong speaker.","group":"rc","appearsOn":["RC-INF","RC-FUNC","RC-PUR"]},{"code":"wrong_function","label":"Wrong function","description":"On RC Function, the answer accurately paraphrases the content of a sentence or paragraph but mis-describes its rhetorical role (claims it concedes when it actually qualifies).","group":"rc","appearsOn":["RC-FUNC","RC-COMP"]},{"code":"distortion","label":"Distortion","description":"On RC Detail, the answer paraphrases the passage but changes a critical word, modifier, or scope. Off by one word, wrong on the question.","group":"rc","appearsOn":["RC-DET"]},{"code":"one_passage_only","label":"One-passage-only answer","description":"On RC Comparative Passages, the answer is true about Passage A or Passage B alone but not about the relationship. Top miss on Comparative items.","group":"rc","appearsOn":["RC-COMP"]},{"code":"confuses_cited_view","label":"Confuses cited view with author","description":"On RC Author Attitude and RC Inference, the answer attributes a view the author cited (someone else's view) as if it were the author's own.","group":"rc","appearsOn":["RC-ATT","RC-INF"]},{"code":"real_world_truth_not_stated","label":"Real-world truth, not stated","description":"On Inference (LR and RC), the answer is a real-world plausible claim that the passage or stimulus does not actually support. The reader brings outside knowledge instead of staying inside the passage.","group":"rc","appearsOn":["IN","RC-INF","RC-ATT"]}],"notes":["No per-question-type empirical frequency tables are included in v1. Pinaka will recalibrate via IRT once cohort attempt data exists. See docs/brand/taxonomy-doctrine.md § Versioning and changelog.","LSAT and Law School Admission Test are registered trademarks of the Law School Admission Council, Inc. Pinaka is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by LSAC."]}