LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Zarie Blackburn
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: Jan 18, 2018
|
#45368
We recently received the following question from a student:

"For question 11, I think the answer should be (F - G) -> F2, since the question says G cannot be cleaned UNTIL F is cleaned unless F is cleaned second."
User avatar
 Jonathan Evans
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 727
  • Joined: Jun 09, 2016
|
#45373
Hi!

Good question! First, there's not an error, but this is a tricky statement so let's look at it more closely. Start by using the Unless Equation™:
  1. Whatever term is modified by “unless,” “except,” “until,” or “without” becomes the necessary condition.
  2. The remaining term is negated and becomes the sufficient condition.
Let's use the equation here:
  • G cannot be cleaned until F is cleaned, unless F is cleaned second.
1. "F cleaned second" becomes the necessary condition.
  • :arrow: F2
2. "G cannot be cleaned until F is cleaned." First, diagram this.
  • F :longline: G
Now, negate it.
  • G :longline: F
This becomes the sufficient condition. This is how we get:
  • (G :longline: F) :arrow: F2
Let's discuss briefly what this statement means to reiterate how and why the Unless Equation works.
  • G cannot be cleaned until F is cleaned, unless F is cleaned second.
What does this mean? Our baseline scenario is one in which "G cannot be cleaned until F is cleaned" (F :longline: G). This is the way is has to be always, except for one scenario. In the event F is cleaned second (F2), then it is possible to have G before F.

Thus, what do we know? In all the scenarios in which F is not second, G is coming after F. This idea can be represented as follows:
  • F2 :arrow: (F :longline: G)
Notice that this is the contrapositive of the conditional statement we made above using the Unless Equation:
  • (G :longline: F) :arrow: F2
Remember that a conditional and its contrapositive are logically equivalent. Therefore, the explanation in the book is correct.

I hope this helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.