Get in touch: (800) 551-3410
Mastering conditional reasoning is key to dominating Logical Reasoning on the LSAT.
Conditional reasoning questions on the LSAT test your ability to understand “if-then” relationships and how they logically connect, reverse, and contrapositive.
These questions involve sufficient and necessary conditions, meaning one element guarantees the other, but not vice versa. For example:
Understanding how these relationships work (and how to manipulate them) is essential for accurate reasoning on the test.
To identify a conditional reasoning question, look for keywords like if, only if, unless, must, requires, or guarantees. These signal that the question relies on formal logic.
Once identified, follow these steps:
Diagramming can help when multiple conditions are linked together.
Below are ten real conditional reasoning questions designed to sharpen your skills and understanding.
“Economist: Every business strives to increase its productivity, for this increases profits for the owners and the likelihood that the business will survive. But not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole. Often, attempts to increase productivity decrease the number of employees, which clearly harms the dismissed employees as well as the sense of security of the retained employees.”
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the economist’s argument?
(A) If an action taken to secure the survival of a business fails to enhance the welfare of the business’s employees, that action cannot be good for the business as a whole.
(B) Some measures taken by a business to increase productivity fail to be beneficial to the business as a whole.
(C) Only if the employees of a business are also its owners will the interests of the employees and owners coincide, enabling measures that will be beneficial to the business as a whole.
(D) There is no business that does not make efforts to increase its productivity.
(E) Decreasing the number of employees in a business undermines the sense of security of retained employees.
Answer:
A. This is not the conclusion, and it’s an extreme and illogical claim. On the LSAT, you must interpret statements literally, as if the author fully endorses them even in extreme scenarios. Taken to an extreme, this choice becomes unreasonable.
Example: “This move saved the company and will generate $1 trillion in profits, but it didn’t benefit employees, so it’s bad for business.” That’s clearly irrational.
B. Correct. This directly reflects the conclusion. The phrasing “But not all…are beneficial” is equivalent to “some measures…fail,” meaning “some are not,” which aligns with the author’s main point.
C. This goes beyond what the author actually says. It’s too extreme. The author may allow for situations where the interests of owners and employees align, so this statement overreaches.
D. This rephrases the opening statement, using a double negative. It’s part of the argument’s background, not the conclusion. It sets the stage but doesn’t express the main point.
E. This is a supporting premise. The conclusion is drawn from it, i.e., “therefore, some productivity measures may not benefit the business overall.”
“An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.”
The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Anyone with a master’s degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the executive board.
(B) Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.
(C) An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator.
(D) If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.
(E) The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator.
Answer:
A. This provides sufficient conditions for board appointment. Taking the contrapositive gives: not on the board → no master’s degree or felony conviction. That’s not helpful. We already know Murray has a felony conviction, so this tells us nothing new about his eligibility.
B. Correct. We’re told Murray isn’t eligible for the board because of his felony. If this statement is true, and eligibility for Executive Administrator requires board eligibility, then Murray can’t be Executive Administrator either.
Diagram: Executive Administrator eligibility → Board eligibility
C. Irrelevant. Just because a master’s degree isn’t required doesn’t mean Murray’s degree disqualifies him. That’s like saying, “Sarah got a 180 on the LSAT, but a 180 isn’t required for law school, so she won’t get in.” It doesn’t follow.
D. This is a flawed negation of the conclusion. It’s possible the felony has no bearing on Murray’s eligibility for Executive Administrator, so he might be unqualified for unrelated reasons.
E. This doesn’t prove the felony is a complete disqualification. It could still be possible for someone with a felony to be appointed, so this doesn’t help us rule Murray out.
“Philosopher: An action is morally right if it would be reasonably expected to increase the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. An action is morally wrong if and only if it would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by it. Thus, actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them are also right.”
The philosopher’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Only wrong actions would be reasonably expected to reduce the aggregate well-being of the people affected by them.
(B) No action is both right and wrong.
(C) Any action that is not morally wrong is morally right.
(D) There are actions that would be reasonably expected to leave unchanged the aggregate well- being of the people affected by them.
(E) Only right actions have good consequences.
Answer:
A. The stimulus already established that reducing aggregate well-being is a sufficient condition for an action being wrong. In a sufficient assumption question, we need new information that helps prove the conclusion. Since this just restates a known condition, it doesn’t move the argument forward.
B. If it had said “every action is either right or wrong,” it could work. Instead, it says “if something is wrong, it’s not right,” which isn’t helpful here. What we need is a statement like “if something isn’t wrong, then it is right.”
C. Correct. The argument tells us that if an action reduces well-being, it’s wrong. So, if an action leaves well-being unchanged, it isn’t wrong. This answer completes the reasoning by stating that if something isn’t wrong, then it must be right.
D. This just says that some actions leave well-being unchanged. That doesn’t help. The argument is about what follows if such actions exist, not whether they actually do.
(Just like saying “you’ll be rich if you win the lottery” doesn’t require you to win for the statement to be valid.)
E. This brings in a new and broader concept—“consequences”—which isn’t discussed in the stimulus. Since it introduces an unrelated term, it doesn’t help link the reasoning.
“Philosopher: Nations are not literally persons; they have no thoughts or feelings, and, literally speaking, they perform no actions. Thus they have no moral rights or responsibilities. But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights and responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands. Obviously, then, a nation _______.”
Which one of the following most logically completes the philosopher’s argument?
(A) cannot continue to exist unless something other than the false belief that the nation has moral rights motivates its citizens to make sacrifices
(B) cannot survive unless many of its citizens have some beliefs that are literally false (C) can never be a target of moral praise or blame
(D) is not worth the sacrifices that its citizens make on its behalf
(E) should always be thought of in metaphorical rather than literal terms
Answer:
A. The argument clearly states that only the false belief that nations have moral rights and responsibilities can motivate citizens to make sacrifices. The phrase “nothing else” refers specifically to that belief.
B. Correct. This is the conclusion the argument is driving at: even though it's false that nations possess moral rights and responsibilities, citizens must still believe it for nations to survive.
C. The philosopher never addresses whether moral blame or praise can be directed at nations. It's possible one could assign blame even without granting moral responsibility, but the argument doesn’t explore that.
D. The author never discusses which sacrifices are valuable or justified. That topic doesn’t appear in the argument at all.
E. This misrepresents the author's position. The philosopher might very well accept that treating nations as if they were individuals can be useful for certain discussions, like diplomacy. The argument doesn’t suggest that personifying nations is necessarily problematic.
“When exercising the muscles in one’s back, it is important, in order to maintain a healthy back, to exercise the muscles on opposite sides of the spine equally. After all, balanced muscle development is needed to maintain a healthy back, since the muscles on opposite sides of the spine must pull equally in opposing directions to keep the back in proper alignment and protect the spine.”
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) Muscles on opposite sides of the spine that are equally well developed will be enough to keep the back in proper alignment.
(B) Exercising the muscles on opposite sides of the spine unequally tends to lead to unbalanced muscle development.
(C) Provided that one exercises the muscles on opposite sides of the spine equally, one will have a generally healthy back.
(D) If the muscles on opposite sides of the spine are exercised unequally, one’s back will be irreparably damaged.
(E) One should exercise daily to ensure that the muscles on opposite sides of the spine keep the back in proper alignment.
Answer:
A. The author never claimed that equal exercise alone is enough to align the back, only that it’s important. Other factors could also be necessary, so this doesn’t have to be true for the argument to hold.
B. Correct. This is essential to the reasoning. If unequal exercise doesn’t cause muscle imbalance, then the argument’s conclusion falls apart.
Negation: Exercising the muscles on opposite sides of the spine unequally does not result in unbalanced muscles.
C. Similar to A, this assumes that equal exercise is all that’s needed. The author never said that. It was only emphasized as important, not as the sole solution.
D. This overreaches. Taken literally, it suggests that a single instance of improper exercise could cause lasting harm, which is clearly too extreme. That level of severity isn’t required by the argument.
Negation: Unequal exercise is generally harmful, but a few isolated instances don’t necessarily lead to lasting damage.
E. The author didn’t mention frequency. They never said daily exercise was required, so this point isn’t relevant.Negation: You could work out every other day and still maintain back health.
“Editorial: The city has chosen a contractor to upgrade the heating systems in public buildings. Only 40 percent of the technicians employed by this contractor are certified by the Heating Technicians Association. So the city selected a contractor 60 percent of whose technicians are unqualified, which is an outrage.”
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument in the editorial?
(A) Certified technicians receive higher pay than uncertified technicians.
(B) There are no contractors with fewer than 40 percent of their technicians certified.
(C) Technicians who lack certification are not qualified technicians.
(D) Qualified technicians installed the heating systems to be upgraded.
(E) The contractor hired by the city has personal ties to city officials.
Answer:
A. Pay is irrelevant here. The argument doesn’t mention compensation at all, so whether certified technicians earn more doesn’t affect the conclusion.
Negation: Certified and uncertified technicians receive the same pay.
B. Comparing this contractor to others with lower certification rates doesn't help. The argument focuses on whether these technicians are qualified, not whether some other contractors are worse.
Negation: One contractor in Ecuador has 39% certified technicians, and every other contractor worldwide has 40% certified.
C. Correct. This directly challenges the assumption the argument rests on—that certification equals qualification. If technicians can be qualified without being certified, the argument loses its foundation.
Negation: Some technicians are qualified even if they lack certification.
D. Who installed the system in the past is irrelevant. The issue is whether the current technicians are qualified, not the history of the system’s installation.
Negation: The heating system was installed by non-human primates.
E. A possible conflict of interest doesn’t impact the argument’s claim about technician qualifications. That’s a separate concern.Negation: The contractor has no personal connection to city officials.
“Principle: The executive in a given company whose compensation package is determined by advice of an external consultant is likely to be overcompensated if the consultant also has business interests with the company the executive manages.”
Which one of the following judgments conforms most closely to the principle stated above?
(A) The president of the Troskco Corporation is definitely overpaid, since he receives in salary and benefits almost 40 times more than the average employee of Troskco receives.
(B) The president of the Troskco Corporation is probably overpaid, since his total annual compensation package was determined five years ago, when the company’s profits were at an all-time high.
(C) The president of the Troskco Corporation is probably not overpaid, since his total compensation package was determined by the Troskco board of directors without retaining the services of an external compensation consultant.
(D) The president of Troskco Corporation is probably overpaid, since the Troskco board of directors determined his compensation by following the advice of an external consultant who has many other contracts with Troskco.
(E) The president of Troskco Corporation is definitely not overpaid, since the external consultant the board of directors retained to advise on executive salaries has no other contracts with Troskco.
Answer:
A. This misuses the principle. It jumps to the conclusion that an executive is overpaid, which goes beyond what the principle allows. That alone makes it incorrect.
B. This begins on the right track but leaves out a key detail. The principle specifically applies when a consultant with business ties to the company sets the salary. Without mentioning that, the logic doesn’t hold.
C. Incorrect. The principle doesn’t support saying an executive is probably not overpaid. It only allows us to conclude the necessary condition—probably overpaid—when the sufficient condition is met.
D. Correct. This choice mirrors the principle accurately. It describes the right conditions and draws the proper conclusion: the executive is probably overpaid.
E. This goes too far. The principle doesn’t justify saying someone is not overpaid, only that they’re probably overpaid if certain conditions are met.
“Actor: Bertolt Brecht’s plays are not genuinely successful dramas. The roles in Brecht’s plays express such incongruous motives and beliefs that audiences, as well as the actors playing the roles, invariably find it difficult, at best, to discern any of the characters’ personalities. But, for a play to succeed as a drama, audiences must care what happens to at least some of its characters.”
The conclusion of the actor’s argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) An audience that cannot readily discern a character’s personality will not take any interest in that character.
(B) A character’s personality is determined primarily by the motives and beliefs of that character.
(C) The extent to which a play succeeds as a drama is directly proportional to the extent to which the play’s audiences care about its characters.
(D) If the personalities of a play’s characters are not readily discernible by the actors playing the roles, then those personalities are not readily discernible by the play’s audience.
(E) All plays that, unlike Brecht’s plays, have characters with whom audiences empathize succeed as dramas.
Answer:
A. Correct. This fills the logical gap identified in the argument and aligns perfectly with the reasoning in the stimulus.
B. This simply repeats terms from the second sentence without adding anything new. Just because it uses familiar language doesn’t mean it strengthens the argument; watch for answer choices that mimic wording without addressing the logic.
C. “Directly proportional” is a common trap on the LSAT. It’s overly technical and rarely relevant. The idea that two things must increase or decrease at exactly the same rate almost never supports an argument meaningfully. Think about it. Do you need your LSAT score to be directly proportional to your law school success?
D. The second sentence already tells us that neither audiences nor actors can grasp Brecht’s characterizations. This choice adds an unrelated condition that would apply to other plays, not Brecht’s, so it’s off-topic.
E. This claims “personality → succeed,” but that doesn’t help us show when plays fail. To prove something doesn’t succeed, we’d need “not succeed” as a necessary outcome, not a byproduct of success.
“The chairperson should not have released the Election Commission’s report to the public, for the chairperson did not consult any other members of the commission about releasing the report before having it released.”
The argument’s conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) It would have been permissible for the chairperson to release the commission’s report to the public only if most other members of the commission had first given their consent.
(B) All of the members of the commission had signed the report prior to its release.
(C) The chairperson would not have been justified in releasing the commission’s report if any members of the commission had serious reservations about the report’s content. (D) The chairperson would have been justified in releasing the report only if each of the commission’s members would have agreed to its being released had they been consulted.
(E) Some members of the commission would have preferred that the report not be released to the public.
Answer:
A. Correct. This matches the logic of the argument. Its contrapositive—“if there was no consent, then the release wasn’t permissible”—supports the conclusion. Since the chairperson didn’t consult the members, we can’t assume consent, which means the release wasn’t permissible.
B. This weakens the argument slightly by implying the members approved of the report. While it doesn’t prove the release was proper, it suggests there was no objection, which undercuts the conclusion.
C. This is irrelevant because we don’t know whether any members had objections. Even if objections make a release permissible, we’re missing that key piece of information here.
D. This doesn’t help. Just because members might have approved if asked doesn’t mean the release was okay. The issue is that they weren’t consulted, not whether they would’ve agreed.
E. This fails to support the argument. The stimulus doesn’t require that a release align with every member’s preference, so this doesn’t show the release was impermissible.
“If Suarez is not the most qualified of the candidates for sheriff, then Anderson is. Thus, if the most qualified candidate is elected and Suarez is not elected, then Anderson will be.”
The reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the reasoning in the argument above?
(A) If the excavation contract does not go to the lowest bidder, then it will go to Caldwell. So if Qiu gets the contract and Caldwell does not, then the contract will have been awarded to the lowest bidder.
(B) If the lowest bidder on the sanitation contract is not Dillon, then it is Ramsey. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Dillon, then it will go to Ramsey.
(C) If Kapshaw is not awarded the landscaping contract, then Johnson will be. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Johnson, then it will go to Kapshaw.
(D) If Holihan did not submit the lowest bid on the maintenance contract, then neither did Easton. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Easton, then it will not go to Holihan either.
(E) If Perez is not the lowest bidder on the catering contract, then Sullivan is. So if Sullivan does not get the contract and Perez does not get it either, then it will not be awarded to the lowest bidder.
Answer:
A. This doesn’t work because it never tells us that either Caldwell or Qiu is the lowest bidder. Without establishing that, the rest of the argument doesn't follow.
B. Correct. This mirrors the structure perfectly. It states that either Dillon or Ramsey is the lowest bidder, and then concludes: if the lowest bidder is chosen and Dillon isn't selected, then Ramsey must be.
C. This fails for the same reason as A; it doesn’t establish that either Kapshaw or Johnson is the lowest bidder. That key condition is missing.
D. This introduces the wrong setup. Instead of saying either Holihan or Easton is the lowest bidder, it suggests both might not be. That breaks the parallel structure we’re looking for.
E. The first part is on target; it correctly sets up that either Perez or Sullivan is the lowest bidder. But the second part doesn’t follow the original logic. It should conclude that if the contract goes to the low bidder and Sullivan didn’t get it, then Perez must have. Instead, it misses that structure.
All actual LSAT® content reproduced within this work is used with the permission of Law School Admission Council, Inc., (LSAC®) Box 40, Newtown, PA 18940, the copyright owner. LSAC does not review or endorse specific test-preparation materials, companies, or services, and inclusion of licensed LSAT Content within this work does not imply the review or endorsement of LSAC. LSAT (including variations) and LSAC are registered trademarks of LSAC.
Reviewed by:
Senior Law School Admissions Advisor & Litigation Attorney, USC Gould School of Law
We're so confident in our 173+ scoring tutors that we'll guarantee you get a 165+ on the LSAT, or you'll get more tutoring for free. Win-win.
