Logical Reasoning

PT13 · S2 · Q25 Unless negotiations begin soon, the

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Unless negotiations begin soon, the cease-fire will be violated by one of the two sides to the dispute.

Statements

conditional (unless -- "if not")

negotiations don't → cease-fire will be violated begin soon by one of the two sides

conditionals (only if -- put it on the right)

negotiations → other countries pressure held the two to negotiate

agreement → other countries continue emerges pressure thru negotiations

conditionals (until -- "if not")

int'l troop haven't demonstrated ability → negotiations to counter other side's won't be held aggression

causal ( , -ing)

Having international troops display their ability to counter aggression from either side will suppress a major incentive for the two sides to resume fighting.

Evaluate

When we're faced with lots of conditionals (unless, only if, only if, no / until), we can decide to take the time to diagram the logic (knowing that the answers will probably try to fool us with illegal reversals or opposites if we're not clear on the order of the ideas), or we can just take a deep breath, take a careful 2nd read and get a better common sense understanding of each connection.

If there are overlapping terms among the conditionals, they probably chain together. The easiest way to chain stuff mentally is to think about it as a series of requirements.

We can read "A → B" as A requires B.

Holding negotiations requires two things: 1. other countries have pressured the two feuding sides 2. international troops have demonstrated they have the heft to counter aggression if either feuding side starts to get aggressive

Getting an agreement requires two things: 1. you hold negotiations (which requires two things) 2. the countries continue to pressure the two feuding sides

Keeping the cease-fire from being violated requires that the negotiations begin soon, which requires we hold negotiations (which requires two things).

The question stem gives us some more constraints to trigger some of these realities.

Goal

Negotiations do begin soon. Does that prove anything?

It doesn't prove anything about whether the cease-fire will be violated; that would be reading the conditional in an illegal Opposite fashion.

But since negotiations beginning soon means that soon we will hold negotiations, it proves that other countries have been pressuring the two sides to negotiate and that international troops have demonstrated their peacekeeping force.

25.

If the statements above are true, and if negotiations between the two sides do begin soon, at the time those negotiations begin each of the following must also be true except:

  1. Correct

    The cease-fire has not been

    Why this is right

    As we evaluated, it would be reading the conditional in opposite-vision to infer anything about the cease fire. That first sentence looks like this: negotiations ? cease fire will be violated. don't begin soon This answer is acting like the first sentence also means this: negotiations ? cease fire won't be violated. do begin soon That's an Illegal Negation. If we fell for this inverted logic, then it suggests that we probably do need to write out these conditionals (at least in the short term), in order to be clear minded on what these rules do / don't say.

    Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    52% picked this

  2. International troops enforcing the cease-fire

    Must Be True

    This was one of the two requirements that we knew followed from holding negotiations. The international troops looked sturdy, and the other countries were pressuring.

    5% picked this

  3. A major incentive for the

    Must Be True

    There were two requirements that we knew followed from holding negotiations: the international troops looked sturdy, and the other countries were pressuring. The final clause of the paragraph told us that when the international troops demonstrate their sturdy enough to counter aggression from either feuding party, that suppresses a major incentive for the two sides to resume fighting (hostilities).

    13% picked this

  4. Other countries have exerted pressure

    Must Be True

    There were two requirements that we knew followed from holding negotiations: the international troops looked sturdy, and the other countries were pressuring. This gives us that second one.

    7% picked this

  5. The negotiations’ reaching an agreement

    Must Be True

    This answer doesn't have anything specifically to do with the fact that we were told that negotiations are beginning soon. It's just derivable from the 3rd rule that "agreements require continued pressure from other countries". So "reaching an agreement depends in part on the actions of other countries".

    23% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free