Key takeaways
- "Takes for granted that X" means the argument relies on X but never supports it.
- Test every such answer with two checks: does the argument need X, and did it skip proving X?
- "Presumes, without providing justification" and "assumes without warrant" mean the same thing.
- The most common trap is an X the argument doesn't need at all.
"The argument takes for granted that…" is one of the most common openings in LSAT answer choices, and one of the most confusing. Students read it as "the argument says" or "the argument believes," and pick answers that describe something the author never relied on. Here is what the phrase means, how I teach students to test it, and the trap that catches most people.
What "takes for granted" means
On the LSAT, "takes for granted that X" means the argument assumes X without giving any reason to believe it. The author treats X as true, the conclusion depends on X, and X is never supported.
So an answer that says "the argument takes for granted that X" makes two claims at once:
- The argument needs X to reach its conclusion.
- The argument never supports X.
If both are true, the answer describes a real weakness. If either one fails, the answer is wrong, even if X sounds like something the author might believe.
You'll see this phrase mostly in Flaw questions ("The reasoning is flawed because it…") and sometimes in assumption questions. In a Flaw question, "takes for granted" points to a gap the argument left open. The gap is the flaw.
Phrases that mean the same thing
The LSAT rotates through several versions of the same idea. Treat all of these as "assumes without support":
| Answer choice wording | What it means |
|---|---|
| takes for granted that X | relies on X, never supports it |
| presumes, without providing justification, that X | same |
| assumes without warrant that X | same |
| fails to establish that X | the argument needed X and didn't show it |
| treats X as if it were Y | assumes X and Y are the same thing |
A related family describes something the argument ignored rather than something it assumed: "fails to consider the possibility that…" and "overlooks the possibility that…" These are two sides of one coin. If an argument takes for granted that X, it also overlooks the possibility that X is false.
The two-check method
Use this every time you see "takes for granted" (or a look-alike) in an answer.
Check 1: Does the conclusion need X? Put X next to the argument's premises and conclusion. Ask: if X were false, would the conclusion lose its support? If the conclusion would be just as well supported without X, the argument doesn't rely on it, and the answer is wrong.
Check 2: Did the argument skip proving X? Look back at the premises. If one of them already states X or gives a reason for it, then the argument didn't take X for granted. It supported X. Wrong answer.
An answer that passes both checks names a gap in the argument. In a Flaw question, that is usually your answer.
A quick way to run Check 1 is the negation idea from necessary assumption questions: flip X to its opposite and see whether the argument falls apart. If it does, the argument needs X. I cover that tool in detail in the necessary assumption guide.
Sample question (LSAT JET original)
A city council member argues: "Since the new bike lanes opened on Harbor Street, the number of cyclists on Harbor Street has doubled. Therefore, the bike lanes have encouraged more city residents to take up cycling."
The council member's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) takes for granted that the number of cyclists on Harbor Street was accurately counted before the lanes opened (B) takes for granted that the increase on Harbor Street reflects new cyclists rather than existing cyclists who switched from other streets (C) fails to consider that some residents dislike bike lanes (D) takes for granted that bike lanes are the safest place to ride (E) presumes, without providing justification, that more cycling is good for the city
Answer: (B).
Run the two checks:
- (B) The conclusion is about more residents taking up cycling. The evidence is only about more cyclists on one street. For the conclusion to follow, the extra Harbor Street riders have to be new cyclists, not people who moved over from other routes. The argument needs that and never supports it. Both checks pass.
- (A) The argument does rely on its numbers, but nothing suggests the count is wrong, and even a perfect count leaves the real gap open: the extra riders could be people who already cycled. When an answer describes a background detail instead of the jump from evidence to conclusion, keep looking.
- (C) Whether some people dislike bike lanes has nothing to do with whether the lanes created new cyclists. Fails Check 1.
- (D) Safety never comes up. The conclusion doesn't need it. Fails Check 1.
- (E) The council member never says more cycling is good. The conclusion is about cause, not value. Fails Check 1.
The trap: the X the argument doesn't need
Most wrong "takes for granted" answers fail Check 1. They describe something the author probably believes, or something related to the topic, but the conclusion doesn't depend on it. Choices (D) and (E) above are classic examples. They feel reasonable because a bike-lane supporter might well believe them.
The fix is to tie every answer back to the conclusion. Before you read the answers, say the conclusion in your own words and name the jump: "Evidence: more riders on one street. Conclusion: more residents cycling. Jump: are these new people?" Then the right answer will match the jump you already found.
A second, smaller trap: answers that pass Check 1 but fail Check 2 because a premise already supplied X. Read the premises carefully before you decide something was "taken for granted."
Why this phrase matters for your score
"Takes for granted" and its look-alikes show up across the Logical Reasoning sections, especially in Flaw questions, which are among the most common question types on the test. If you can test these answers in two quick checks, you stop losing points to answers that sound smart but describe the wrong thing.
It also trains the habit behind most assumption-family questions: find the gap between the evidence and the conclusion before you look at the answers. That habit carries straight into sufficient assumption questions and flaw questions.
How to practice it
- In your next practice section, circle every answer that begins with "takes for granted," "presumes," or "assumes without."
- For each one, write a one-word verdict for each check: "needed? yes/no" and "supported? yes/no."
- In your blind review, log any miss where you picked an answer that failed Check 1. That pattern tells you to name the jump before reading the choices.
Frequently asked questions
What does "takes for granted" mean on the LSAT?
It means the argument assumes something is true without giving any support for it. An answer that says "the argument takes for granted that X" claims the conclusion depends on X and that X was never supported.
Is "takes for granted" the same as "presumes without providing justification"?
Yes. The LSAT uses "takes for granted," "presumes, without providing justification," and "assumes without warrant" interchangeably. All three describe an unsupported assumption the argument relies on.
What question types use "takes for granted"?
It appears most often in Flaw questions, where the unsupported assumption is the flaw. It also shows up in some assumption and Weaken-style answer choices.
How do I know if a "takes for granted" answer is right?
Run two checks. First, the conclusion must actually need X. Second, the argument must not have supported X anywhere in its premises. If both are true, the answer names a real gap.
Next step
Small live classes, capped at 12 students. Alan teaches every session himself and reviews your mistakes.
Want to stop losing points to answers that sound smart? Book a free 15-minute course call and we'll find where your Logical Reasoning points are leaking.
Related articles
- LSAT Sufficient Assumption Questions: Build the Bridge
A sufficient assumption makes the conclusion airtight. Find the new idea in the conclusion and connect it to the evidence.
- LSAT Parallel Reasoning and Parallel Flaw: Match the Skeleton
Ignore the topic. Strip the argument to its skeleton, match the conclusion first, and most answers fall away fast.