Is this CLAT mock test really free?

Yes. There is no registration, no email wall and no payment. You can take all 30 questions and see your score and the full solutions without giving us anything.

How is the CLAT mock test scored?

On the official CLAT marking scheme: one mark for each correct answer and a deduction of 0.25 marks for each wrong answer. Questions you leave blank carry no penalty, which is why guessing blindly costs you marks.

How many questions are in the real CLAT paper?

CLAT 2027 has 120 multiple-choice questions to be answered in two hours, with 0.25 marks deducted for a wrong answer. This diagnostic is 30 questions built in the same section proportions, so it takes about 30 minutes.

CLAT 2027 is scheduled for Sunday 6 December 2026, from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm. Registration opened on 3 August 2026 and closes on 31 October 2026.

Are these real CLAT questions?

They are original questions built on the official CLAT pattern. The legal principles are real statutes and judgments, the current affairs passages describe real events, and every source is listed at the bottom of the page. The official past papers are copyright of the Consortium of NLUs, so we do not reproduce them.

Free CLAT Mock Test 2027 | 30 Questions, Instant Score, No Signup

Free diagnostic · No signup

Take a CLAT mock test right now

30 questions on the official CLAT 2027 pattern, marked the way the real paper is marked:
+1 for a correct answer, −0.25 for a wrong one. You get your score the
moment you submit, broken down by section, with a worked solution for every question explaining
why the other three options fail.

No registration. No email wall. Nothing to download.

30 questions
30 minutes
Official section mix
Instant score
Solutions for all 30

0 of 30 answered

30:00

The timer starts when you answer the first question, not when the page loads. If you would
rather work through it untimed, ignore the clock — nothing is submitted automatically until
it reaches zero, and you can submit early at any point. Your answers are kept in this browser only.

Your result

0 / 30

Want the same thing on a full-length paper?

Send us a number and Priyanka will WhatsApp you a full 120-question paper on this pattern,
plus a short plan aimed at your weakest section based on how
you just scored. She teaches the current affairs and GK module here, so the plan comes from
someone who has seen where this paper usually breaks people.

One message, not a sequence. We do not pass your number to anyone.

English Language6 questions

Passage — English Language

Why legal writing resists plain English

There is a long-running campaign to make legal writing simpler, and on the face of it the campaign is unanswerable. Contracts that ordinary people sign should be readable by ordinary people. Statutes that bind a whole population should not require a specialist to decode them. Every year some public body promises to strip the archaic vocabulary out of its forms, and every year the promise is greeted as obviously sensible.

Yet the campaign keeps stalling, and it is worth asking why. The usual explanation is that lawyers are protecting their monopoly: complexity keeps the client dependent and the fee high. This is a satisfying accusation and it is occasionally true. But it does not explain why the drafters who most sincerely want to be understood still produce dense text.

The deeper reason is that legal language is not primarily trying to communicate. It is trying to survive. A sentence in a contract is not written for the cooperative reader who wants to know what it means. It is written for the hostile reader who wants it to mean something else, and who will be arguing about it, years later, in front of a judge who was not in the room when it was signed. Ordinary prose depends on shared context to fill its gaps. Legal prose cannot assume shared context, because the entire point of the document is to govern the moment when the parties stop agreeing about what the context was.

So the drafter writes defensively. The tripled synonym that reads as pompous padding to a layperson often marks the boundary of three doctrines that courts have historically treated differently. The tortured proviso is usually a scar left by a case in which a cleaner sentence failed. What looks like ornament is frequently sediment: the accumulated residue of arguments that were lost.

None of this excuses genuinely bad drafting, and there is a great deal of it. Much archaism is simply copied forward by drafters who have never asked what a phrase is doing. The honest position is that legal writing carries two kinds of difficulty at once, and the reform movement has been careless about separating them. There is difficulty that is doing work, and difficulty that is merely inherited. The first kind cannot be removed without cost, and pretending otherwise sets reformers up to fail. The second kind should have been deleted decades ago.

A reformer who cannot tell the two apart will either achieve nothing, because every proposal is resisted by drafters who can point to a real risk, or will achieve something worse than nothing, by producing a document that reads beautifully and collapses the first time it is tested.

Q1English Language

Which statement best captures the central argument of the passage?

ALawyers deliberately obscure their drafting to protect their monopoly, keep clients dependent and justify higher feesBThe plain-language campaign has largely achieved its aims, and the complexity that survives is now trivialCSome difficulty in legal writing does real work and some is merely inherited, and reform fails when it ignores the differenceDContracts should be drafted primarily for the judges who may later interpret them rather than the parties who sign them

Answer: C. The passage’s thesis is stated directly in the fifth paragraph: legal writing ‘carries two kinds of difficulty at once, and the reform movement has been careless about separating them.’ Option A is named in the passage as ‘occasionally true’ but explicitly rejected as insufficient. Option B contradicts the passage. Option D is not claimed anywhere.

Q2English Language

In the fourth paragraph the author calls legal ornament ‘sediment’. What does this comparison convey?

AIt was deposited by past disputes, layer upon layerBIt is purely decorative and could be removed at no costCIt has grown too heavy for courts to interpret consistentlyDIt was imposed on drafters by an Act of Parliament

Answer: A. The sentence continues: ‘the accumulated residue of arguments that were lost.’ Sediment is deposited over time by past events, which is precisely the author’s claim about defensive drafting. B is the reading the author is arguing against.

Q3English Language

According to the passage, why can legal prose not rely on shared context in the way ordinary prose does?

ABecause contracting parties are usually strangers to one anotherBBecause judges are forbidden from considering any circumstance outside the document itselfCBecause the drafter writes for an audience of fellow specialistsDBecause the document exists to govern the very moment the parties stop agreeing

Answer: D. Stated in paragraph three: ‘the entire point of the document is to govern the moment when the parties stop agreeing about what the context was.’ B is false as a matter of law and is not claimed. A and C are never suggested.

Q4English Language

Which finding, if established, would most weaken the author’s explanation for dense legal drafting?

ASome public bodies have announced simplification programmes and then quietly abandoned themBPlain-language documents are litigated and lost no more often than the versions they replacedCMany drafters copy standard phrases forward without ever examining what those phrases doDMembers of the public consistently report finding contractual language intimidating and opaque

Answer: B. The author’s core claim is that some complexity is load-bearing — that removing it costs something in litigation. Evidence that plain-language documents perform identically in court removes exactly that justification. C is already conceded by the author as the ‘merely inherited’ category, so it does not weaken the argument. A and D are consistent with the passage.

Q5English Language

How would the author most likely describe a reformer who deletes every archaic phrase from a contract without investigating any of them?

ACorrect in method, since inherited language serves no purpose worth preservingBIrrelevant, since drafters would quietly ignore the revised document in practiceCRisky, since some deleted wording was doing work that will surface only under challengeDDishonest, since the reformer’s real motive is to protect professional standing

Answer: C. The final paragraph warns of a document that ‘reads beautifully and collapses the first time it is tested.’ A contradicts the passage’s central distinction. D inverts the monopoly accusation, which the passage aims at lawyers who resist reform, not at reformers.

Q6English Language

Which best describes the author’s overall stance towards the plain-language campaign?

ASympathetic to its aim but critical of how crudely it separates necessary from unnecessary complexityBWholly opposed, on the ground that legal documents are not written for lay readers at allCUninterested in the debate, treating it as a distraction from more serious questions of lawDFully supportive, holding that the only remaining obstacle is professional self-interest

Answer: A. The author calls the campaign’s aim ‘unanswerable’ and says bad archaism ‘should have been deleted decades ago’, but faults reformers for being ‘careless’ about the distinction. That is sympathy plus methodological criticism. B and D are each half of the position, not the whole.

Current Affairs7 questions

Passage — Current Affairs

Parliament extends statutory protection to the national song

In July 2026 Parliament took up a short but symbolically charged piece of legislation. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 24 July 2026 and passed by that House on 29 July 2026, after a debate in which opposition members protested and eventually walked out.

The Bill amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. That parent Act already penalises insults to three things: the national flag, the Constitution of India, and the national anthem. The 2026 amendment adds a fourth, extending the same statutory protection to the national song, Vande Mataram.

The penalty structure is inherited rather than newly created. An offence under the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine, or with both. For a second and every subsequent conviction, the Act prescribes a minimum term of one year’s imprisonment.

The distinction the Bill closes is one that has confused people for a long time. The national anthem, Jana Gana Mana, and the national song, Vande Mataram, have historically occupied different legal positions despite being treated as equivalent in public sentiment. The anthem carried statutory protection; the song did not. Supporters of the amendment argued that this gap was an accident of drafting that ought to have been corrected long ago. Critics questioned whether extending criminal liability was the appropriate instrument for cultivating respect, and whether the provision would be applied evenly.

Q7Current Affairs

Before the 2026 amendment, which of these did the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 NOT protect?

AThe Constitution of IndiaBThe national song, Vande MataramCThe national anthem, Jana Gana ManaDThe national flag

Answer: B. The passage states the parent Act covered the flag, the Constitution and the anthem; the 2026 Bill adds the national song. That gap is the entire purpose of the amendment.

Q8Current Affairs

What punishment does the Act prescribe for a first offence?

AA fine only, with no possibility of imprisonmentBImprisonment of not less than one yearCRigorous imprisonment for seven years together with a mandatory fineDImprisonment which may extend to three years, or a fine, or both

Answer: D. Stated in the passage and in the Bill text. Option B describes the minimum for a second or subsequent conviction, not a first offence — a distinction the passage draws explicitly.

Q9Current Affairs

A commentator argues the amendment was unnecessary because public sentiment already treats the song and the anthem as equivalent. Which point from the passage most directly answers that argument?

AThat the two held different legal positions, and only the anthem carried statutory protectionBThat the Rajya Sabha passed the Bill on 29 July 2026 after a contested debateCThat opposition members protested during the debate and later walked out of the HouseDThat the penalty structure was inherited from the parent Act rather than newly created

Answer: A. The commentator conflates sentiment with legal status. The passage’s answer is that the two came apart: sentiment treated them alike, the statute did not. B, C and D are all true of the passage but none engages the argument.

Passage — Current Affairs

India convenes a global AI summit

In February 2026 India hosted the India AI Impact Summit at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi. The Summit sessions were held on 19 and 20 February 2026, within a longer programme week that also included an expo and a research symposium. It was organised under the Government of India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

The Summit was structured around a theme drawn from Sanskrit — Sarvajana Hitaya, Sarvajana Sukhaya, rendered as welfare for all, happiness for all. Its programme was organised around three foundational pillars, described as Sutras: People, Planet and Progress.

The People pillar framed artificial intelligence as a force for human progress, with emphasis on respecting cultural diversity, preserving dignity and building inclusion into how systems are designed and deployed. The Planet pillar addressed responsible innovation, reducing the resource footprint of AI while using it to accelerate climate resilience and environmental protection. The Progress pillar positioned AI as an engine of inclusive growth, aligning its benefits with global development priorities and equitable access to opportunity.

The framing was deliberate. Much of the preceding international conversation on AI governance had been led from North America and Europe and had centred on catastrophic risk and on restraint. India’s stated emphasis fell instead on distribution — on who gets access to the technology’s benefits and on whether the Global South participates in setting the terms rather than receiving them.

Q10Current Affairs

What were the three Sutras around which the India AI Impact Summit 2026 was organised?

AAccess, Accountability and AutonomyBInnovation, Regulation and TrustCPeople, Planet and ProgressDSecurity, Sovereignty and Scale

Answer: C. Stated on the official summit site and in the passage. The three pillars were People, Planet and Progress.

Q11Current Affairs

The passage contrasts India’s framing with the preceding international conversation on AI governance. What was the difference?

AIndia focused on catastrophic risk, while earlier forums had concentrated on commercial opportunity and market accessBIndia emphasised distribution and access, while earlier forums centred on catastrophic risk and restraintCIndia argued for binding treaty obligations, while earlier forums preferred voluntary commitmentsDIndia confined itself to domestic policy, while earlier forums addressed cross-border questions

Answer: B. The final paragraph: earlier conversation ‘had centred on catastrophic risk and on restraint’; India’s emphasis ‘fell instead on distribution’. A reverses the two positions.

Passage — Current Affairs

The Supreme Court closes the administrative route to retrospective clearance

On 29 July 2026 a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India. The Bench was led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, sitting with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi.

The dispute concerned ex post facto environmental clearance — permission granted after a project has already begun construction or operation without the prior clearance the law requires. In 2021 the Union Government had issued an Office Memorandum setting out a procedure by which such projects could be regularised retrospectively.

The Court quashed that Office Memorandum. Writing for the Bench, Justice Bagchi held that the prior-clearance regime established under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 is mandatory, and that it cannot be diluted except through a statutory notification. An Office Memorandum, being an administrative instrument rather than a statutory one, could not do that work.

The ruling was not, however, an absolute prohibition on retrospective clearance. The Bench clarified that the Central Government retains the power to grant post facto clearances in exceptional cases in the public interest, provided it does so through a valid statutory notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and provided any such amnesty is narrowly tailored. The objection was to the instrument, not to the possibility.

Q12Current Affairs

What exactly did the Supreme Court hold in Vanashakti v. Union of India?

AThat retrospective environmental clearance can never be granted under any circumstances whatsoeverBThat the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 is itself unconstitutional and voidCThat clearance may be granted after construction has begun, provided the project can be shown to serve the public interestDThat the 2021 Office Memorandum was invalid, since relaxing prior clearance requires a statutory notification

Answer: D. The passage is explicit that ‘the objection was to the instrument, not to the possibility.’ A overstates the holding — the Court preserved a narrowly tailored statutory route. C ignores the instrument requirement that the case turned on.

Q13Current Affairs

Under which provision may the Central Government still issue a valid notification permitting post facto clearance in exceptional cases?

ASection 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986BArticle 253 of the Constitution of IndiaCSection 15 of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006DSection 11 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Answer: A. Stated in the judgment and in the passage: a statutory notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Legal Reasoning8 questions

Q14Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: An agreement entered into by a person who has not attained the age of majority is void from the outset, and cannot be enforced against that person. A person who has supplied money or goods under such an agreement cannot recover it by suing on the contract.

FACTS: Ishan, aged 17, borrows Rs 40,000 from a lender and signs a document mortgaging his house as security. He states in the document that he is 19. He reaches 18 four months later. The lender then sues to recover the money and enforce the mortgage.

Which outcome follows from the principle?

AThe lender succeeds, since Ishan lied about his age and cannot profit from his own falsehoodBThe lender succeeds, since Ishan had attained majority by the time the suit was filedCThe lender fails, since the agreement was void when made and nothing later gave it forceDThe lender recovers the Rs 40,000 as a debt but cannot enforce the mortgage over the house

Answer: C. Void from the outset means the agreement never had legal existence, so neither later majority nor the misrepresentation revives it. This tracks Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose (1903), where a minor mortgaged property after representing himself as an adult and the mortgage was held void. Note the trap in A: the principle as given says nothing about misrepresentation, and CLAT requires you to apply only the stated rule.

Q15Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: Life-sustaining medical treatment may be withdrawn from a patient in a permanent vegetative state where continuing it serves no therapeutic purpose and merely prolongs biological existence. Clinically assisted nutrition and hydration delivered through a tube counts as medical treatment, not as basic nursing care.

FACTS: Meera has been in a permanent vegetative state for eleven years and receives nutrition through a tube. Her treating hospital applies for permission to withdraw the tube. Her family objects, arguing that feeding a patient is ordinary care that no court may authorise stopping, and that withdrawal would amount to starving her.

How should the application be decided under the principle?

ARejected, since feeding a patient is basic nursing care and lies outside the principleBGranted, since tube-delivered nutrition counts as medical treatment and may be withdrawnCRejected, since the consent of the patient’s family is a precondition to any withdrawalDGranted, but only if Meera had recorded her wishes in advance while she still had capacity

Answer: B. The principle expressly classifies clinically assisted nutrition and hydration as medical treatment rather than basic care, which defeats the family’s argument in A. This is the classification made in Harish Rana v Union of India (11 March 2026), applying the framework from Common Cause v Union of India (2018). C and D add conditions the stated principle does not contain.

Q16Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: Where a statute requires permission to be obtained before an activity begins, that requirement may be relaxed only by an instrument of the same legal character as the one that created it. An administrative circular cannot relax a requirement imposed by a statutory notification.

FACTS: A statutory notification requires a factory to obtain clearance before construction starts. A department issues an internal circular allowing factories that have already built without clearance to apply for it afterwards. Rooprekha Industries builds first and applies under the circular. A residents’ association challenges the circular.

What follows?

AThe challenge succeeds, since a circular cannot relax what a statutory notification imposedBThe challenge fails, since the department administering a requirement may decide how to apply itCThe challenge fails, since Rooprekha acted in good faith on a published departmental instructionDThe challenge succeeds, and retrospective clearance is now barred to every project by every means

Answer: A. The principle is about the instrument used, not about whether relaxation is possible at all — so D overshoots. This mirrors Vanashakti v Union of India (29 July 2026), where the Supreme Court quashed a 2021 Office Memorandum while preserving the government’s power to act by valid statutory notification.

Q17Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: A person is liable in negligence where they owed the claimant a duty to take reasonable care, they failed to meet that standard, and that failure caused the damage complained of. If the damage would have occurred anyway, the third element is not made out.

FACTS: A municipal body fails to repair a broken streetlight for six months, in breach of its maintenance duty. One night Farhan is struck by a speeding car on that stretch of road. Evidence at trial establishes that the driver was looking at a phone, never looked up, and would not have seen Farhan regardless of the lighting.

Is the municipal body liable to Farhan in negligence?

AYes, since failing to repair the light breached the duty and the collision happened thereBYes, since a public body is held to a stricter standard of care than a private defendantCNo, since a municipal body owes no duty of care to individual users of its roadsDNo, since the collision would have happened anyway, so the breach did not cause the damage

Answer: D. Duty and breach are both established here; the case turns on the third element. The principle states expressly that where the damage would have happened anyway, causation fails. A is the classic error of stopping at breach. C denies a duty the facts concede.

Q18Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: A promise is enforceable only if something is given or promised in return for it. An act already completed before the promise was made, and done without any request from the promisor, is not treated as something given in return.

FACTS: During a power cut, Sneha notices that her neighbour Vikrant’s shop shutter is open and unattended. Without being asked, she secures the shutter and stays until morning. Two days later Vikrant, on hearing what she did, promises to pay her Rs 8,000. He later refuses to pay.

Can Sneha enforce the promise?

AYes, since she was put to trouble and Vikrant clearly benefited from what she didBNo, since a promise of this kind must be recorded in writing before it binds anyoneCYes, since Vikrant promised freely and knew exactly what he was paying forDNo, since her act was finished before the promise and was never requested

Answer: D. Both conditions in the principle fail: the act was complete before the promise was made, and it was not done at Vikrant’s request. Benefit alone is not what the principle asks about, which disposes of A. B imports a writing requirement the principle never states – a common distractor pattern in this section.

Q19Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: A person may use force to defend themselves against an immediate threat of harm. The force used must be proportionate to the threat faced, and the right ends as soon as the threat does.

FACTS: Tarun is punched once by Girish during an argument. Girish then turns and walks away. Tarun picks up an iron rod, follows him for some distance, and strikes him on the head, causing a serious injury.

Can Tarun rely on the right of private defence?

AYes, since Girish began the altercation and Tarun was merely responding to itBNo, since the threat had ended and the force used was disproportionateCYes, provided Tarun can show he was genuinely frightened at the moment he struckDNo, since the right of private defence arises only against a threat to life itself

Answer: B. Two independent parts of the principle are breached: immediacy and proportionality. A treats provocation as if it were a defence, which the principle does not. D misstates the rule — the principle refers to a threat of harm, not only a threat to life.

Q20Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: The freedom to express oneself is guaranteed to citizens, but the State may impose restrictions on that freedom by law where the restriction is reasonable and falls within a listed ground, such as public order, decency, or contempt of court. A restriction that does not fall within a listed ground is invalid however desirable its purpose may be.

FACTS: A State enacts a law prohibiting the publication of any article that criticises the State’s economic policy, on the stated ground that such criticism discourages investment and slows growth.

Is the law valid under the principle?

ANo, since discouraging investment is not a listed ground for restricting the freedomBYes, since sustained economic growth benefits the public and therefore serves public orderCYes, since the legislature is entitled to decide for itself what restrictions are reasonableDNo, since the freedom to express oneself is absolute and admits of no restriction at all

Answer: A. The principle’s final sentence decides the question: a restriction outside the listed grounds is invalid regardless of its merit. B stretches ‘public order’ past breaking point. D is wrong because the principle expressly permits restrictions on listed grounds. This tracks the structure of Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2).

Q21Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: A law penalising insult to a specified national symbol applies only to the symbols the statute lists. Courts may not extend the list by treating an unlisted object as equivalent to a listed one, even where the two are widely regarded as being of the same character.

FACTS: A statute penalises insult to the national flag and the national anthem. Kabir is prosecuted for publicly defacing a printed copy of the national song, which the statute does not mention. The prosecution argues that the song and the anthem are regarded as equivalent in public sentiment and should be treated alike.

How should the court decide?

AConvict, since public sentiment treats the national song and the anthem as equivalentBConvict, since defacing any national symbol undermines the purpose the statute servesCAcquit, but only if Kabir can show he did not intend to cause any offence by his actDAcquit, since the song is unlisted and the list may not be extended by analogy

Answer: D. The principle bars exactly the reasoning the prosecution offers. This is why the gap had to be closed by Parliament rather than by a court: the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 extended the 1971 Act to the national song. C introduces an intention requirement the principle does not mention.

Logical Reasoning6 questions

Q22Logical Reasoning

A school reports that students who take part in debating score higher in their final English examination than those who do not. The principal concludes that debating improves examination performance and makes it compulsory for all students.

Which assumption is the principal’s conclusion most dependent on?

AThat debating is enjoyed by the majority of students currently at the schoolBThat the students who chose debating were not already stronger at EnglishCThat English is the most important subject in the school’s overall curriculumDThat the school has enough teachers available to supervise compulsory sessions

Answer: B. The argument moves from a correlation among self-selected participants to a causal claim about everyone. It collapses if the debaters were already better at English — the selection explains the gap without any causal effect. D concerns whether the policy is practicable, not whether the reasoning holds.

Q23Logical Reasoning

A city introduces a congestion charge in its central district. Traffic volumes in that district fall by a fifth over the following year. The transport department claims the charge caused the fall.

Which finding would most weaken the department’s claim?

ASome drivers report resenting the charge and the way it was introducedBThe charge raised noticeably less revenue than the department had forecastCA minority of residents in the district were exempted from paying itDTwo major employers left the district that year, moving thousands of commutes

Answer: D. D supplies an alternative cause large enough to account for the drop, which is what weakening a causal claim requires. A and B concern popularity and revenue, neither of which bears on causation. C is too small to explain a fifth.

Q24Logical Reasoning

Every member of the debating society is also enrolled in the moot court programme. Some members of the moot court programme have won a national award. Anjali is a member of the debating society.

Which conclusion follows necessarily?

AAnjali is enrolled in the moot court programmeBAnjali has won a national award for her debatingCEvery member of the debating society has won a national awardDEvery member of the moot court programme belongs to the debating society

Answer: A. The first statement guarantees A: every debating society member is in the moot court programme. B does not follow, because only ‘some’ moot court members won the award and Anjali need not be among them. C converts ‘some’ into ‘every’. D reverses the containment stated in the first sentence.

Q25Logical Reasoning

A columnist writes: ‘The proposal to lower the voting age deserves no attention. It is being advanced by a party that performed poorly in the last election and is obviously looking for new voters.’

What is the principal flaw in this reasoning?

AIt relies on statistical evidence that is never disclosed to the readerBIt treats a merely possible outcome as though it were certain to occurCIt attacks the motives of those proposing the measure, not the measureDIt generalises from a single example that is unlikely to be representative

Answer: C. The columnist offers nothing about the proposal itself, only about who is making it and why. A self-interested proponent may still be right, so motive cannot settle the question. The other options describe real flaws, but none of them is the flaw present here.

Q26Logical Reasoning

A publisher observes that its five bestselling books last year all had covers in dark colours. It instructs its designers to use dark covers on every forthcoming title, expecting sales to rise.

Which consideration most undermines this instruction?

ADark covers are marginally more expensive to print than lighter onesBThe publisher never checked the covers of the books that sold poorlyCReaders surveyed said they choose books mainly on a friend’s recommendationDTwo of the five bestsellers were by authors who were already well known

Answer: B. The publisher looked only at successes. If dark covers are equally common among failures, the feature does not distinguish them and the inference has no support. D weakens the argument somewhat by offering another explanation for two of the five, but B undercuts the method for all of them.

Q27Logical Reasoning

‘Anyone who genuinely cared about road safety would support lowering the speed limit. My opponent opposes lowering it. So my opponent does not genuinely care about road safety.’

Assuming the first statement is true, what is the status of this argument?

AInvalid, since it moves from a claim about a group to a claim about one personBInvalid, since opposing one safety measure need not mean opposing them allCValid, and it further establishes that lowering the limit is the right policyDValid in form, though everything rests on an opening premise merely asserted

Answer: D. The form is sound: if all who care support the measure, then one who does not support it does not care. What carries the weight is the unargued opening premise. This question separates whether an argument is valid from whether its premises are true — a distinction the section tests repeatedly. C is wrong because validity does not establish the policy conclusion.

Quantitative Techniques3 questions

Q28Quantitative Techniques

CLAT awards 1 mark for each correct answer and deducts 0.25 marks for each wrong answer. Unattempted questions carry no penalty. The paper has 120 questions.

Ritika attempts 96 questions and leaves the rest blank. She scores 71 marks. How many of her attempted questions were correct?

A72B76C80D84

Answer: B. Let c be correct, so wrong = 96 – c. Then c – 0.25(96 – c) = 71, giving c – 24 + 0.25c = 71, so 1.25c = 95 and c = 76. Check: 76 correct = 76 marks; 20 wrong = -5; total 71. Note that 80 is what you get if you forget the negative marking entirely — which is why it is offered.

Q29Quantitative Techniques

The CLAT 2027 application fee is Rs 4,000 for candidates in the General and OBC categories and Rs 3,500 for candidates in the SC, ST, BPL and PwD categories.

By what percentage is the General/OBC fee higher than the reserved-category fee? Give the answer to one decimal place.

A12.5%B13.5%C14.3%D15.0%

Answer: C. The increase is 4,000 – 3,500 = 500, taken as a percentage of the lower figure: 500/3500 x 100 = 14.285…, which is 14.3% to one decimal place. Option A is the trap: 500/4000 = 12.5% answers a different question, namely how much lower the reserved fee is than the general fee.

Q30Quantitative Techniques

CLAT 2027 is a two-hour paper containing 120 questions.

A candidate spends 35 minutes on one section of 22 questions. She wants to spread the time she has left evenly across every question still remaining. Approximately how many seconds does that give her per question?

A52 secondsB43 secondsC60 secondsD73 seconds

Answer: A. Time left = 120 – 35 = 85 minutes = 5,100 seconds. Questions left = 120 – 22 = 98. So 5,100 / 98 = 52.04, or about 52 seconds. Each wrong option is a specific slip: 43 comes from dividing the remaining time by all 120 questions (5,100/120); 60 comes from ignoring the time already spent (7,200/120); 73 comes from counting the remaining questions but forgetting the spent time (7,200/98).

How this paper is built

Wondering whether to practise on real past papers instead? Worth knowing first that only three of the nineteen CLAT past papers in circulation match the format you will sit — the exam changed in 2020 and again in 2024.

CLAT 2027 is 120 questions in two hours, every one of them attached to a
passage, with a quarter mark taken off for each wrong answer. That last detail is the one most
people underestimate. Four wild guesses cancel one correct answer, so a candidate who attempts
everything can easily finish below a candidate who attempted twenty fewer questions and was
honest about what they did not know.

This diagnostic is 30 questions rather than 120, in the same section proportions the
Consortium uses, so it takes about half an hour instead of two. It is meant to tell you which
section is leaking marks, not to simulate exam-day stamina. For that you need the full paper.

The legal reasoning questions are built on real law — a 1903 judgment on minors’
contracts, the Supreme Court’s March 2026 ruling on withdrawal of life support, its July 2026
ruling on retrospective environmental clearance. The current affairs passages describe events that
actually happened, with dates. Everything is sourced at the bottom of this page. What we have not
done is copy past CLAT papers, which belong to the Consortium.

What your score is telling you

Read the section breakdown before the total. A candidate scoring 18 out of 30 with the marks
spread evenly has a different problem from one scoring 18 with legal reasoning at full marks and
current affairs near zero. The first needs volume; the second needs a reading habit and about
three months.

Also look at your accuracy on attempted questions separately from your raw score. Accuracy
below roughly 60% usually means you are attempting questions you should be leaving alone, and the
negative marking is quietly undoing your good work. That is a strategy problem, and it is faster
to fix than a knowledge problem.

Common questions

Is this really free?

Yes. No registration, no email wall, no
payment. You can take all 30 questions and read every solution without giving us anything. The
form after your score is optional and asks for a phone number only if you want the full-length
paper.

How is it scored?

On the official CLAT scheme: one mark for a
correct answer, 0.25 deducted for a wrong one, nothing for a blank. Leaving a question blank is
better than a blind guess, and the scoreboard above shows you the difference.

When is CLAT 2027?

Sunday 6 December 2026, 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm.
Registration opened on 3 August 2026 and closes on 31 October 2026. The fee is Rs 4,000 for
general and OBC candidates and Rs 3,500 for SC, ST, BPL and PwD candidates. Full details are in
our CLAT 2027 registration guide.

Are these actual past CLAT questions?

No, and you should be careful
of anyone claiming otherwise. Past papers are the Consortium’s copyright. These are original
questions on the official pattern, built from real statutes, real judgments and real events, all
listed in the sources below.

How many mocks should I be taking?

Fewer than most people tell you,
and analysed far harder. A mock you have spent two hours reviewing is worth more than three you
scored and moved on from. The review is where the marks are.

If you want the rest of it

Lawgic runs one live online CLAT programme at Rs 20,000 flat — complete
course, mocks and mentorship, with no premium tier and no upsell. If you would rather compare the
market first, we have written an honest guide to
choosing CLAT coaching in India and a piece on
what CLAT coaching actually costs, including which
institutes publish a price and which will not tell you until you call.

Preparing mostly from free material? Our guide to the
best Telegram
channels for free CLAT mocks is the most-read page on this site.

Sources — every factual claim on this page traces to one of these,
checked on 3 August 2026.

Consortium of National Law Universities, CLAT 2027 UG syllabus — 120 questions, 2 hours, 1 mark each, 0.25 deducted per wrong answer, passages of about 450 words, and the description of each section.
Consortium of National Law Universities, CLAT 2027 UG instructions — exam on Sunday 6 December 2026, 2:00–4:00 pm; registration 3 August to 31 October 2026; fee Rs 4,000 general and OBC, Rs 3,500 for SC, ST, BPL and PwD; 26 participating NLUs.
Harish Rana v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, 11 March 2026 (2026 INSC 222) — the classification of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration as medical treatment, applying Common Cause v. Union of India (2018). Used in Legal Reasoning Q2.
Vanashakti v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, 29 July 2026, Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi — the 2021 Office Memorandum on retrospective environmental clearance quashed; post facto clearance requires a statutory notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Used in Current Affairs and Legal Reasoning Q3.
PRS Legislative Research, The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 — introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 24 July 2026; extends the 1971 Act to the national song; penalty of up to three years, a fine, or both, with a one-year minimum on a second conviction.
India AI Impact Summit 2026, official summit site — 19–20 February 2026 at Bharat Mandapam; theme Sarvajana Hitaya, Sarvajana Sukhaya; the three Sutras of People, Planet and Progress; convened by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) — a minor’s agreement is void from the outset. Used in Legal Reasoning Q1, read with the capacity provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The English and Logical Reasoning passages are original prose written for this
paper and make no factual claims. Legal Reasoning principles are paraphrased from the statutes and
judgments above; the fact scenarios are invented, as they are in the real exam. We do not reproduce
past CLAT papers, which are the copyright of the Consortium of National Law Universities.

Take a CLAT mock test right now

Want the same thing on a full-length paper?

Why legal writing resists plain English

Parliament extends statutory protection to the national song

India convenes a global AI summit

The Supreme Court closes the administrative route to retrospective clearance

How this paper is built

What your score is telling you

Common questions

If you want the rest of it

Related Posts

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply