Legal & Law

What legal employers assess

Legal selection leans heavily on verbal and analytical reasoning, and the reason is practical rather than academic. The day-to-day work involves reading a document closely enough to notice what it does not say, and distinguishing what a source actually supports from what it feels like it supports. The assessment sections are a compressed version of that task, and they are marked strictly against the text provided.

This strictness surprises candidates who read well in general. A verbal reasoning question will frequently include an option that is true in the world but not stated in the passage, and that option is wrong. The skill being measured is fidelity to the source, not general knowledge or plausibility.

Assessment types in legal hiring

Most processes combine a verbal reasoning stage with either a deductive logic section or a written exercise. The written exercise is usually marked on structure and precision rather than on legal knowledge.

• Verbal reasoning. A passage followed by statements that must be judged true, false, or not stated on the basis of the passage alone. Usually the largest single section.
• Deductive reasoning. Syllogisms and conditional arguments where the conclusion must follow necessarily from the premises, regardless of whether those premises are realistic.
• Critical thinking. Identifying an argument's assumption, weakening or strengthening it, and spotting a reasoning flaw.
• Word relations. Analogies and vocabulary items, often used where the role involves precise drafting.
• Written exercise or case discussion. A short analysis under time, marked on structure, precision and the use of the material given.

A method for verbal reasoning

The true, false, not stated decision is where most marks are lost, and almost always in the same direction: calling something false when the passage simply does not address it. The routine below is built around that distinction.

1. Read the passage once for structure, noting what each paragraph is doing rather than memorising it.
2. For each statement, locate the specific sentence or sentences that bear on it. If none exist, the answer is not stated.
3. Decide true or false only on the basis of those sentences, not on general knowledge or on what the author probably intended.
4. Treat a statement as false only when the passage contradicts it, not when the passage merely omits it.
5. Watch for absolute words such as all, only, never and always; they are often what makes a statement false.
6. For deductive items, ignore whether the premises are realistic and ask only whether the conclusion is forced by them.

Worked examples

Passage: 'The tribunal may extend the deadline where the appellant can show that the delay was caused by illness.' Statement: 'The tribunal must extend the deadline when an appellant is ill.'

Answer: False.

Why: The passage says the tribunal MAY extend, which is a discretion, and it requires the appellant to show causation by illness. The statement replaces may with must and drops the causation requirement, so the passage contradicts it. Had the passage simply been silent on illness, the answer would have been not stated rather than false.

All registered charities file an annual return. Some organisations that file an annual return are not registered charities. Does it follow that all organisations filing an annual return are registered charities?

Answer: No.

Why: The second premise explicitly allows non-charities in the filing group, so the conclusion is contradicted. The trap is the familiarity of the first premise; a conclusion has to be forced by all the premises together, not by the most memorable one.

Argument: 'The policy reduced reported incidents, so the workplace became safer.' Which assumption does the argument require?

Answer: That the reduction in reported incidents reflects a real reduction in incidents rather than a change in reporting behaviour.

Why: The argument moves from a reporting measure to a real-world claim. That step needs the reporting measure to track the thing itself. Naming the assumption as a sentence you can test is the whole technique in critical thinking sections.

Common mistakes in legal assessments

• Calling a statement false when it is merely absent. False requires contradiction by the passage. Silence makes it not stated.
• Using outside knowledge. The passage is the whole world for the question, however implausible it is.
• Missing absolutes. All, only, never and always are usually doing the work in a false statement.
• Testing premises for realism in deductive items. Validity depends on form, not on whether the premises are true in life.
• Answering the interesting question. The item asks a specific thing; an adjacent insight is not a mark.

Where to go next

Practise verbal reasoning with the discipline of pointing to the sentence that decides each item, including for the items you get right. That habit is what transfers to drafting and to written exercises, where vague accuracy is not enough.

• Verbal reasoning practice
• Deductive reasoning practice
• Critical thinking practice
• Word relations practice
• All cognitive test intros
• Preparation guides and articles

Frequently asked questions