How to Identify and Solve LSAT Contrapositive Questions

To identify contrapositive questions, look for conditional logic (if/then structures) and prompts that ask for logically equivalent statements, necessary conditions, or valid deductions.

To solve them, identify the original conditional statement, reverse the order of the terms, and negate both terms. Ensure you don’t confuse the converse (which is not logically equivalent) with the contrapositive.

Accurate diagramming can help, but even without symbols, focus on internalizing the flip-and-negate rule.

5 Sample LSAT Contrapositive Questions With Answer Explanations

Below are five sample questions that demonstrate how contrapositive logic appears on the LSAT, each followed by a clear explanation of why the correct answer is logically equivalent to the original condition.

Sample Question #1

“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. If we take the contrapositive, it reads:
Not eligible for board → No master’s degree or felony conviction. That’s not helpful. We already know Murray has a felony conviction, which explains his ineligibility. This adds nothing new to support or challenge the conclusion.

B. CORRECT. This fills the logical gap. If being eligible for Executive Administrator requires eligibility for the board, and Murray isn’t eligible for the board due to his felony, then he can’t be Executive Administrator either.
Diagram: Executive Admin eligible → Board eligible
Murray ≠ Board eligible → Murray ≠ Executive Admin eligible

C. This misses the point. Just because a master’s degree isn’t required for the position doesn’t mean having one is irrelevant. It’s like saying, “Sarah scored a 180 on the LSAT. That’s not required for law school, so she won’t get in.” The logic doesn’t follow.

D. This is a flawed negation. It assumes that because someone is ineligible, the felony must be the reason. But there could be other disqualifying factors. So it doesn’t directly support the conclusion.

E. This weakly implies that a felony might be disqualifying, but doesn’t prove that it always is. The conclusion requires a definitive link, not just a possibility.

Sample Question #2

“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. This restates information already given: actions that reduce aggregate well-being are wrong. But sufficient assumption questions require new information that helps guarantee the conclusion. Since this adds nothing new, it doesn’t help prove the argument.

B. If this said, “every action is either right or wrong,” it would’ve worked. But instead, it says, “if something is wrong, it’s not right,” which is a basic truth that doesn’t help bridge the reasoning gap. What we need is a way to say, “if not wrong → right.”

C. CORRECT. The argument tells us: Decrease in well-being → Wrong.
So if an action leaves well-being unchanged, it doesn’t trigger the “wrong” condition. This answer completes the argument by saying that such an action is, therefore, right, giving us the missing link: Not wrong → Right.

D. This just tells us that actions which leave well-being unchanged exist, but the argument isn’t about whether they exist, it’s about what moral status they have if they do. So this doesn’t move the argument forward.

E. This introduces “consequences,” a vague and broader term not used in the argument. Since the argument focuses specifically on aggregate well-being, this new terminology muddies the waters and doesn’t strengthen the logic.

Sample Question #3

“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 explicitly states that nothing else (apart from the belief that nations have moral rights and responsibilities) can motivate citizens to make the necessary sacrifices for national survival. So, this belief is presented as essential, even though it's false.

B. CORRECT. This is the main conclusion the argument builds toward: while it’s false that nations possess moral rights and responsibilities, their survival depends on citizens holding that very belief. This directly captures the author’s point.

C. The philosopher doesn’t discuss moral praise or blame, nor whether nations can be targets of such moral evaluation. The argument is focused only on belief as a motivator for citizen behavior, not on accountability or moral judgment.

D. The argument never evaluates whether the sacrifices themselves are worthwhile. It’s concerned only with the idea that the survival of a nation requires sacrifices and that belief in national moral rights motivates those sacrifices.

E. The author never claims that conceptualizing nations as people is inherently flawed. In fact, the argument doesn’t object to that practice at all; it focuses on whether the belief that nations have moral rights and responsibilities is true, not whether such a framing is useful or acceptable in other contexts (like diplomacy or shorthand).

Sample Question #4

“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. The contrapositive of this statement is: No consent → Not permissible. Since the chairperson released the report without consulting the commission, and we don’t know if they consented, we must conclude the release wasn’t permissible. This directly supports the argument’s conclusion.

B. This weakens the argument. If the commission members approved of the report, it suggests they might have consented to its release, undermining the claim that the release was impermissible.

C. We don’t know whether any members objected. The argument isn’t based on objection, but on the lack of consent. Even if no one objected, that doesn’t prove the release was permissible.

D. This misses the point. Just because the members might have agreed doesn’t mean it was permissible to release the report without consulting them. The flaw lies in the absence of consultation, not the hypothetical outcome.

E. This doesn’t help. The stimulus never claimed that unanimous agreement was required. So the preferences of individual members don’t establish whether the release was wrong or not.

Sample Question #5

“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. It never establishes that Caldwell or Qiu is the lowest bidder, which is essential to match the structure of the original argument.

B. CORRECT. This perfectly mirrors the original structure. It establishes that Dillon or Ramsey is the lowest bidder, then says: if the lowest bidder is chosen and it isn’t Dillon, then it must be Ramsey. This matches the original logic exactly: one of two options is true, and eliminating one confirms the other.

C. This fails to show that either Kapshaw or Johnson is the lowest bidder, so it can’t support a valid conclusion in the same form. Without that starting point, the logical structure breaks.

D. This reverses the structure. Instead of saying “either A or B is the lowest bidder,” it claims it’s possible that neither is, which is the opposite setup and leads to a totally different logical direction.

E. The first half is solid; it correctly states that either Perez or Sullivan will be the lowest bidder. But the second part breaks the structure. It doesn’t conclude that if Sullivan isn’t chosen, Perez must be. That final conditional is necessary to complete the logical parallel.

‍

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.‍