Day 45 of 168 · Week 8
Day 45 / 168 Week 8 of 28 Phase 2: Logical Reasoning Deep Dive

Must Be True II: Formal-Logic Inferences (Conditionals & Quantifiers)

🕑 ~80 min · Archetype A — LR Deep Dive

Must Be True II: Formal-Logic Inferences

The most mechanical Inference variant: stimuli built almost entirely from conditionals and quantifiers, where the correct answer is a valid logical consequence you derive by chaining.

1. Diagram First

Translate every conditional/quantified statement before reading the answer choices. This type rewards the Week 2/3 diagramming discipline directly.

2. Chain, Then Check Each Answer

Derive every valid inference you can from the diagram before looking at choices; the correct answer is almost always one of these, sometimes via the contrapositive.

Practice items on this page are curriculum-authored in LSAT style; they are not official LSAC questions. Real drilling happens on LawHub — see the assignment below.

Q1. Given "If a proposal lacks funding, it is tabled" and "This proposal was not tabled," what follows?

A. The proposal lacks funding
B. The proposal has funding
C. Nothing follows
D. The proposal was approved
Correct answer: B. Contrapositive of 'lacks funding → tabled' is 'not tabled → has funding.' Since it wasn't tabled, it has funding.

LawHub drill-tier LR section, untimed. Scan for conditional-heavy Must Be True stimuli.

An RC maintenance day tomorrow introducing comparative passages, then Must Be False closes the core Inference trio.