LSAT Blogs

Given a statement in "if X, then Y" format, most people are perfectly comfortable writing it down in shorthand (X → Y) and forming the contrapositive (No Y → No X). However, there’s one formal logic keyword that distracts and confuses more test takers than any other: unless.

While some people continually struggle with "if" vs. "only if" (remember, "if" indicates a sufficient condition; "only if" indicates a necessary condition), "unless" is a virtually universal stumper. However, like with any concept on the LSAT, dealing with this issue comes down to understanding it.

To help, let’s use an analogy from the world of politics: Unless you were born in the United States, you cannot become President of the United States.

So, what does that mean? Just like on the LSAT, the word "unless" indicates a necessary condition; a person needs to be born in the United States. What is that necessary for? It’s necessary to be the president. However, does being born in the United States guarantee one becoming president? Of course not.

Remember that necessary conditions are just that – necessary. They will not guarantee results. However, what happens if a person was not born in the U.S.? That guarantees something: that person cannot be president. So, how does this translate into formal logic? Like so:

Not born in U.S. → Not president
President → Born in the U.S.

Many people will offer the following quick tip: cross out the word "unless" and replace it with "if not." Then, start with that "if not" and go from there. It works perfectly because you’re negating the necessary condition. And when you don’t have the necessary condition, you can’t possibly have the condition for which it’s necessary.

Take one more quick example for practice: The television show will be canceled unless viewers draft a petition.

In this case, drafting a petition is necessary to save the television show, but even the best petition isn’t guaranteed to save it. However, change that "unless" to "if not," and you have a definite statement: if viewers don’t draft a petition, the show will be canceled. And, by the contrapositive: If the show is not canceled, then viewers must have drafted a position. (Note how drafting a petition is the necessary condition in this logic.)

Now, go find your hardest "unless" statement and don’t let it stump you again.

If you’ve been admitted to law school(s), you’ve noticed that many of them require you to put down a second deposit to hold your seat. Hopefully you’ve been doing your research to determine which school best fits your needs. If you haven’t already done so, make every effort to visit the law school(s) you’re still considering. Now is the time to ask any further questions you may have.

Below are a few important notes regarding your second deposit:

• They are non-refundable.
• If you need an extension, contact the Admissions Office immediately to request it. There is absolutely no guarantee the law school will approve the extension, but you won’t know if you don’t ask.
• The deadline date is firm; you must get your payment in on time.
• Once you have committed to the law school you wish to attend, please notify the other school(s) that you will not be attending there. This will allow the law school to fill that seat immediately. Look at it from the other side: Consider that you are waitlisted at Your-First-Choice-School-A, and are waiting anxiously to hear a decision before submitting your second deposit at School B. Wouldn’t you appreciate it if an accepted applicant to School A had the courtesy to inform the school that he/she has opted to attend a different institution? Maybe the spot would then be offered to you.

Most importantly, you’ll be spending the next 3-4 years (depending on whether you’re attending full time or part time) at the school, and I want you to be very happy with your decision so you can enjoy pursuing your JD degree.

Anyone familiar with Kaplan’s Method for Logical Reasoning knows that we recommend reading the question stem before reading (or untangling, as we like to say) the stimulus. This isn’t just some arbitrary decision; it’s a reasoned recommendation that merits justification.

1. Many people who read the stimulus first will then read the question stem, realize what the question is looking for, and have to read the stimulus a second time to pick up anything they missed. That means reading up to a dozen or more lines of text twice. If you know the question ahead of time, you can read the stimulus just once, gather the information you need, and answer the question in less time.

2. When you read the stem first, you know what to expect and can attack the stimulus appropriately. For instance:

* "Undermine the argument"? The stimulus will have a full argument with a conclusion and supporting evidence, and you want to determine how you can make it worse.
* "What can be properly inferred"? Chances are there won’t be a conclusion — just a string of facts that you can combine to form logical deductions.
* "Resolve the paradox"? There will be information with an internal discrepancy that you’ll need to explain, rather than the standard evidence-conclusion argumentative structure.

When you know what you’re looking for, you can take a more strategic and ultimately more efficient approach to the stimulus.

3. Occasionally, the question stem comes with helpful information that makes it easier to recognize the answer. For example, there have been flaw questions that read "the argument is vulnerable to criticism because it ignores the possibility that." Without even reading the stimulus, you already know the flaw! Now you can read the stimulus looking for that overlooked alternative.

Some people complain that reading the stem first causes you to overlook important information in the stimulus because you’re too focused on finding specific information. However, complaints such as this frequently come from a misunderstanding of the method or from people unfamiliar with the reasoning behind the method. Knowing that you’re looking for a conclusion and back-up evidence is no excuse for ignoring critical keywords such as "however" or "despite." Reading the stem first is meant to provide guidance, not serve as a reason to ignore potentially vital information.

There’s a reason for every method Kaplan recommends. However, it’s up to each test-taker to understand how the method works and apply it properly.