Shopping Basket
Your Basket is Empty
Quantity:
Subtotal
Taxes
Delivery
Total
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should receive an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Basket

Blog

How LSAT formal logic applies directly to the law

Posted on 18 June, 2015 at 13:25
Please note that this article discusses formal logic concepts, such as "conditional statements" and "the contra-positive". A full explanation for these concepts won't be provided here, but that shouldn't be necessary. For anyone not familiar with these concepts, just know that this article isn't expressing an opinion about the Bill of Rights (see below), but a formulaic application of formal logic.

The LSAT Analytical Reasoning (games) section is riddled with formal logic. That is, "if-then" statements and the infamous contra-positive, the only deduction that can made from such conditional statements. We all know that the law is all about logic, which is the foundation of the LSAT, but isn't most of life all about logic? What is it about the law that requires students to agonize over switching and negating, changing "or" to "and", while remembering that "neither...nor" means "not...and"?  A great answer can be found in the good old Bill of Rights.

Let's start with the Fourth Amendment and how formal logic shows that  warrantless searches are actually constitutional (BTW - I'm a libertarian):

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This sentence can be accurately (though not completely) rephrased into four conditional statements:
IF unreasonable search THEN search not permitted.
IF search permitted THEN search is reasonable (contra-positive of previous statement)
IF warrant THEN probable cause AND particular description.
IF no probable cause OR no particular description, THEN no warrant (contra-positive of previous).

Notice how the second conditional statement provides the only necessary condition to conduct a search: it needs to be reasonable. Nothing about warrants.

Yes, yes, this begs the question of what is meant by "reasonable", but that's beyond the scope of this article (but not my LSAT training, BTW).

For those familiar with LSAT formal logic - did you notice the "not...unless" phrase in "no Warrants...but upon"? And that's not the only place you'll see it in the Bill of Rights, but I'll get back to that.

Back to the Fourth Amendment. Nowhere does it say, or even imply, the following:
IF search permitted THEN warrant.
Or the contra-positive:
IF no warrant THEN no search permitted.

To repeat: the two above conditional statements are NOT logical deductions that can be drawn from the Fourth Amendment. The logical implications of a warrant support this:
IF warrant THEN search permitted.
Or the contra-positive
IF search not permitted THEN no warrant.

This creates an interesting connection to the explicit text, namely:
IF warrant THEN search is reasonable.
(IF warrant THEN search; IF search THEN reasonable; therefore: IF warrant THEN search is reasonable).
Or the contrapositive:
IF search is not reasonable, THEN no warrant.

Fun, right? Head spinning yet? If not, then congratulations - you're ready for the LSAT. If so, then rest assured that many students are in the same boat. Just know that formal logic isn't just some abstract concept designed to drive students crazy. In fact, it has actual life or death implications, as found in parts of the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

Accurately rephrased into a conditional statement:
IF deprivation of life THEN due process.
Or the contra-positive:
IF no due process THEN no deprivation of life.

Notice the "not...unless" statement ("no...without")? 
Discuss...



Categories: The LSAT

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

81 Comments

Reply Tyrell Hooker
13:19 on 15 October, 2015 
guest think within impressive and?
Reply Nettikasino bonukset 24
11:11 on 19 October, 2015 
amateurs have no a good clue?
Reply Marta Corron
17:17 on 27 October, 2015 
wall in the hallway?
Reply Roy Bordeau
20:02 on 27 October, 2015 
The contemplation and even idea?
Reply car accidents
11:46 on 10 November, 2015 
The LSAT Analytical Reasoning (amusements) segment is loaded with formal rationale. That is, "if-then" proclamations and the scandalous contra-positive, the main derivation that can produced using such restrictive articulations. We all realize that the law is about rationale, which is the establishment of the LSAT, yet isn't the vast majority of life about rationale? What is it about the law that obliges understudies to struggle with exchanging and discrediting, evolving "or" to "and", while recollecting that "neither...nor" signifies "not...and"? An incredible answer can be found in the great old Bill of Rights. Thanks!
Reply asdfas
6:14 on 22 December, 2016 
oasdflk
Reply www.barretttaxlaw.com
6:15 on 22 December, 2016 
The two above restrictive proclamations are not coherent conclusions that can be drawn from the fourth amendment. The consistent ramifications of a warrant bolster this.
Reply researchpaperwriter
11:00 on 26 December, 2016 
This blog shared articles may helpful to find formal logic applies directly to the law of this blog. The details are everything I have read from this website, and thanks for every update.
Reply Personal injury lawyers
7:28 on 9 May, 2017 
I am happy to find so many useful information here in the blog post, we need develop more strategies in this regard, thanks for sharing.
Reply Tax Lawyer Toronto
9:02 on 9 June, 2017 
Fantastic logical article. Thanks for the info.
Reply Toronto Tax Lawyer
9:37 on 9 June, 2017 
I went thorough the blog and thought its just awesome. Thanks for logical explanation.
Reply personal-injury-solicitors
10:47 on 26 November, 2017 
Thanks for this I will try more
Reply Franklin
11:32 on 4 June, 2018 
Wow! what a nice post.
Reply premieressay
16:44 on 23 June, 2018 
This article with explain to the reader the comparison between civil and common law. There are many differences among the two but there are also several similarities. It also talks about the establishment of both laws such as where they came from, how they were brought up, and where they are in today’s societies.
Reply djhd
7:51 on 26 June, 2018 
Hello! I think you will write my paper reviews need help in writing essays. Click and get more information
Reply https://www.researchwritingkings.com/review-of-rushessay-com/
10:22 on 12 October, 2018 
Tyrell Hooker says...
guest think within impressive and?

People also should know their rights because most people do not know that if there are no warrants, police can not do anything or search for anything in your place. People need to be aware of the things they have the a right. Thank you for posting this article and letting many people know about what are their rights. Some authorities just used their power to abuse people and people should be ready for those authorities.
Reply George Hurst
11:01 on 6 March, 2019 
sdsadsd
Reply science homework help
18:31 on 7 March, 2019 
I must say you have done a very good job by sharing the full information and guidance about the work. I will write about this on my writing for sure. Thank you once again for the good work!
Reply Workmans Comp Lawyer
9:31 on 15 March, 2019 
I admire your unique way of writing about the legal. Thanks for sharing..
Reply Abbie Obenour
12:19 on 15 March, 2019 
Thank you for sharing constructive information with us. I am also an attorney to provide legal consultation in Worthington.
0