LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

Questions and Answers related to our course homework and lessons.
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Oct 09, 2017

I am having trouble understanding the book's negation (found on 6-93) for #8: "Unless we protect our rights, we will lose them."

The conditional statement is diagrammed as this: Not Lose Rights --> Protected Rights

The negation, to me, must be this: Even if we do not protect our rights, we will not lose them.

The book negates #8 as this: Even if we protect our rights, we will lose them.

I am having a difficult time understanding how the book's negation is a logical opposite to "Unless we protect our rights, we will lose them."

Thanks for the help.
 Jennifer Janowsky
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: Aug 20, 2017

Really great question! In this statement "unless" is the necessary condition (protect our rights). In order to negate this statement, you must show that the sufficient condition (lose our rights) can occur even without the necessary condition present. Simply put, you’re trying to prove that the necessary condition is not really necessary. This is where “Even if” comes in: it shows that a lack of the necessary condition does not prevent the sufficient from occurring.

The statement here is “Unless we protect our rights, we will lose them.” This can then be negated by showing the necessary condition is not needed for the sufficient condition to occur: that we will still lose our rights, “Even if” we protect them.

I hope this helps!
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Oct 09, 2017

Brilliant. Thank you.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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