Find Your Next Legal Career Opportunity in Nigeria

Browse through over a thousand legal jobs, scholarships, events, and many more in Nigeria's only and largest legal opportunity platform.

208,610 opportunity views
View All
S

HR/Legal Officer

Swift Consulting

Major ResponsibilitiesProvide legal advice and guidance on internal and external matters affecting the companyDraft, review, and negotiate company agreements and contractsManage recruitment, onboarding, performance appraisals, and employee relationsDevelop and implement HR policies, procedures, and best practicesPrepare employment contracts, offer letters, and HR-related legal documentationEnsure compliance with labour laws, regulatory requirements, and company standardsSupport senior management in strategic HR planning and workforce developmentCoordinate disciplinary processes and handle conflict resolutionMaintain employee records and HR management systems.

Lagos
Full Time
P

Legal/Admin Officer

PWAN Group Limited

Key ResponsibilitiesProvide legal and administrative support to the Legal & Admin Department.Draft, review, and organize legal documents, contracts, letters, and internal correspondence.Ensure proper documentation, filing, and retrieval of legal and administrative records.Assist in ensuring company-wide adherence to regulatory and internal compliance processes.Liaise with government agencies, external counsel, business units, and senior management as required.Manage appointment scheduling, prepare meeting minutes, and maintain departmental records.Support due diligence activities related to property documentation and business transactions.Perform general office administrative functions and other assigned duties in line with operational needs.

Multiple Locations
Full Time
P

Senior Legal Officer

PWAN Group Limited

Job DescriptionWe are seeking an experienced Senior Legal Officer to strengthen our Legal & Compliance operations and support the organization’s growth strategy.Key ResponsibilitiesProvide strategic legal advisory support to management and business units.Draft, review, negotiate and finalize contracts, agreements, MOUs, SLAs, deeds, and legal correspondence.Oversee property documentation, title verification, due diligence, and regulatory compliance processes.Manage internal legal documentation systems and ensure proper filing and retrieval.Represent the company in dealings with external counsel, regulatory agencies, partners, and government bodies.Handle legal matters relating to property acquisition, project development, sales, partnerships, and dispute resolution.Proactively identify legal risks and propose risk mitigation strategies.Prepare and present legal opinions, reports, and management briefs.Supervise junior legal staff and provide mentorship as required.

Lagos
Full Time
G

Senior IP Legal Associate

Global Profilers

SummaryAre you a skilled legal professional with a strong background in Intellectual Property (IP) law and at least 5 years’ experience?Our client – a reputable legal practice – is looking for a dedicated IP Legal Associate who can deliver sound legal advice and provide comprehensive IP services to clients.Key Responsibilities IncludeDrafting, reviewing, and negotiating legal/IP documentsManaging client relationships and supervising admin/legal supportProviding IP-related legal opinions and overseeing legal processesLeading case research, contract execution, and dispute resolutionContributing to knowledge sharing, training, and firm development

Lagos
Full Time
PalmPay logo

Legal Officer

PalmPay

The Legal Officer will play a crucial role in reviewing and drafting commercial contracts, including but not limited to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with banks, switches, micro-finance banks, Other Financial Institutions (OFIs), etc. The ideal candidate should have extensive experience in the banking or fintech industry, particularly in reviewing and drafting commercial contracts.Primary ResponsibilitiesResearch and review relevant laws and regulationsAnalyze legal issues and develop strategies to resolve themDraft, review and negotiate all types of commercial contracts and other legal documentsProvide legal advice, guidance and recommendations to the Company on various mattersMonitor legal developments and advise on the implications for the organizationLiaise with external counsels, LEAs and regulatory bodies when requiredAssist in the development and implementation of legal policies and proceduresMaintain records of all legal documents and dataMinute writing

Lagos
Full Time
H

Lawyer

Handyman Daige Properties

Handyman Daige Properties is a private company in Abuja offering real estate development services. We prioritize delivering customized homes that meet our clients requirements.Job DescriptionAssist and Monitor all compliance with CAC, EFCC and other government bodies and identifying potential risks for mitigation.Assist in Drafting and filing pleadings, motions, agreements, client letters, demand letters, invoices and other documents relating to the companyAssist in handling various aspects of legal research and court appearances for the company.Analyze law sources including statutes, judicial decisions and legal articles that will be of use for the company.Assist in conducting corporate registrations and post incorporations.Assist in Monitoring legal risk in real estate documentation and advise company and clients accordingly.Interpret laws, rulings and regulations for real estate transactions.Assist in drafting agreements for Joint Ventures Partnerships.Assist in drafting routine leases and amendments.Support legal and general advisory needs associated with a large-scale real estate portfolio.Assist, Manage regulatory, and compliance related services.Liaise with the company external legal firm on legal matters.Assist in drafting and liaise with sales department concerning commercial contracts and Agreements. (Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Deed Of Assignment, Contract of Sale And Tenancy Agreement)Assist in drafting internal company policies, employment contracts and ensure compliance.Confidentiality in data and information management.  

Abuja
Full Time
D

Compliance Specialist

Dangote Industries Limited

Dangote Group is one of Nigeria’s most diversified business conglomerates with a hard – earned reputation for excellent business practices and products’ quality with its operational headquarters in the bustling metropolis of Lagos, Nigeria in West Africa.Job SummaryAssisting the Compliance Lead in discharging responsibility for guiding and advising the Company and its subsidiaries, to ensure regulatory and legislative compliance, and the application of the principles of corporate governance.Job ResponsibilitiesAssist in the drafting of the policy and regulatory agenda for the Company in line with industry expectations and governance codes. Ensuring the resolution, or escalation to the Compliance Lead of any unaddressed or overdue items.Conduct research on comparative corporate governance principles of other regulatory bodies. Provide comparative reviews and assistance to develop Policies and a Code of Ethics. Supervising, communicating, and coordinating the implementation of any new regulatory development, including ensuring adequate policies and procedures are in place within the business.Appreciation of drafting regulations, manuals, and guidance documents. Ensure the proactive identification of key concern areas and alert leadership to regulatory/legislative issues and gaps, and work with them for resolution.Serve as an independent monitor and conduct surveillance of business units’ compliance program. Support of the overall Group alignment of policy response and Group strategy. Provide legal support to the Compliance Lead, Company Secretaries, as well as other ad-hoc legal duties.  

Lagos
Full Time
W

Recovery Officer, Remedial Asset Management

Wema Bank Plc

Wema Bank Plc - Widely reputed as the longest surviving and most resilient indigenous bank in Nigeria, Wema Bank Plc has over the years, diligently offered a fully-fledged range of value-adding banking and financial advisory services to the Nigerian public.We are recruiting to fill the position below:Job Title: Recovery Officer, Remedial Asset ManagementLocation: LagosJob SummaryThe Legal Officer in the Remedial Asset Management Department is responsible for providing legal support in the recovery and restructuring of impaired/delinquent facilities.The role involves advising on legal strategies for NPL recovery, managing litigation processes, drafting and reviewing legal documents, and ensuring compliance with regulatory and contractual obligations.The officer works closely with internal stakeholders and external counsel to maximize recovery and minimize legal risks.Key ResponsibilitiesLegal Advisory & Strategy:Provide legal advice on recovery strategies including restructuring, foreclosure, asset disposal, and litigation.Advise on legal implications of remedial actions and ensure alignment with regulatory frameworks.Documentation & Review:Draft, review, and negotiate legal documents including demand notices, settlement agreements, guarantees, and court processes.Ensure all documentation complies with applicable laws and internal policies.Litigation Management:Liaise with external solicitors and monitor progress of recovery-related litigation.Represent the Bank in court proceedings where necessary and ensure timely resolution of cases.Asset Recovery Support:Support the execution of recovery actions including repossession of financed assets.Coordinate with law enforcement agencies and estate management for lawful access and recovery.Stakeholder Engagement:Collaborate with Loan Monitoring and other relevant departments to develop and implement recovery strategies.Engage with customers and guarantors to negotiate settlements and enforce obligations. 

Lagos
Full Time
E

Legal Officer

Efficacy Development Plc

Efficacy Development PLC is a top real estate company in Nigeria, celebrated for unwavering commitment to delivering exceptional properties. As a renowned real estate development company located in Lagos, With a rich history spanning seventeen years, we have not only transformed skylines but also lives, leaving a lasting mark on the real estate landscape.We are recruiting to fill the position below:Job Title: Legal OfficerLocation: Ikoyi, LagosEmployment Type: Full-timeResponsibilitiesAttend to court matters and matters with the law enforcement agencies.Draft and/or review legal letters, contracts and agreements, briefs, notices, circulars, correspondence, orders, reports and other legal forms from individuals, companies, government or third parties, as requested, including all our sites.Checks documents or papers for compliance and correctionResearch and prepare legal opinions on various civil matters, including claims for compensation against the company.Apply effective risk management techniques and offer proactive advice on possible legal issues.Ensure the company (all within the Efficacy Group) complies with the Labour Act.Prepare, file and plead cases in the Commercial Court in pursuit of amounts owed to the Company.Attend to and proofread every content drafted by the Customer Service Officer before posting the same on our social media platforms on request/instruction as the need arises.Liaise with and assist external counsel in the discharge of their obligation.File oppositions in matters where title is being passed or property is being encumbered, and there are arrears due and payable to the Company.Research and prepare legal opinions on various civil matters, including claims for compensation against the Company.Attend to all the company’s events and the planning of the same with the Customer Service Officer, as may be required.Attend to all legal and corporate meetings, which include clients, vendors and Customers.Attend to all the company’s WhatsApp groups and ensure proper compliance on the platform.Work with Accounts on statutory documentation.Work with Land Assist on clients’ management, documentations, including drafting of Contract Agreement for all Peak sites and any other sites as instructed.Maintain a database of the status of all court matters involving the Company.Stand in for the legal officer II when absent or out for an official assignment.Communicate with external parties (regulators, external counsel, public authority, etc.), creating relations of trust.Attend to issues of compliance or welfare as the case may arise, and attend to urgent issues that require solution/intervention by the legal unit.Draft and solidify agreements, contracts and other legal documents to ensure the company’s fulllegal rights, as soon as the agreement/contract has been established.Draft petitions, review petitions and follow up on petitions, especially with respect to all our estates, staff and vendors.Draft subcontractor agreement and ensure the file is open for each of them, follow up on their job execution with the Cost manager.

Lagos
Full Time
P

Programme Assistant (Bilingual English/French)

Paradigm Initiative

Job Summary: The Programmes Assistant provides essential administrative, logistical, and coordination support to the Programmes team across all regions, including East, Central, Southern, and Francophone Africa. This role is critical for the smooth planning and execution of PIN’s digital rights and inclusion programmes and events. The assistant will handle administrative tasks, support financial processes, assist in event organisation, and ensure clear communication within the multilingual team. Fluency in both English and French is mandatory for this role.Reporting To: Senior Officer ProgrammesRoles and Responsibilities:Administrative & Logistical Support:Prepare and process financial documents, including payment vouchers, advance requests, and expense reports, with 98% accuracy for timely submission to Finance.Provide end-to-end logistical support for program events, workshops, and meetings (virtual and physical), including venue booking, travel arrangements, procurement of materials, and catering coordination.Maintain and organise the Programmes team’s shared files, databases, and records with 100% completeness and easy accessibility.Schedule and coordinate internal and external meetings, prepare detailed agendas, and document comprehensive minutes with action items.Program Implementation Support:Assist Programmes Officers in preparing and formatting programme reports, concept notes, and presentation materials in both English and French with 95% accuracySupport programmes monitoring by tracking deliverables and alerting officers of potential delays 48 hours before.Support ecosystem monitoring by ensuring that specific regional developments are flagged out to the programmes team once every week for at least 5 African countries.Conduct preliminary research on programme-relevant topics, delivering summarised findings within agreed timelines.Communication and Liaison:Provide accurate translation of programmes, communications, and documents between English and French with 98% linguistic accuracyServe as.Financial and Resource Coordination:Maintain a complete inventory of programmes assets and materials with monthly reconciliationCoordinate vendor payments and follow up on financial requests with a 100% completion rateKey Performance Indicators (KPIs):Administrative & Operational SupportProcess and submit all payment vouchers and advance requests to Finance within 24 hours of receiving complete documentation.Schedule and confirm meetings for programme teams at least 48 hours in advance.Circulate meeting minutes and action items within 24 hours after each meeting.Programme & Event SupportProvide logistical support for programme events, ensuring all required materials are prepared 3 days in advance.Compile and format programme reports for officer review according to agreed timelines.Track programme deliverables and alert officers of potential delays 48 hours before.Communication & Stakeholder ManagementAcknowledge all internal and external communications within one business day.Deliver accurate bilingual translations of essential programme documents within the agreed-upon timeline.Disseminate programme information to all designated stakeholders according to the established schedule.Research & CoordinationProvide timely support to the research officer for at least one research project per quarter.Maintain the programme library and shared databases, ensuring all documents are filed correctly weekly.Regional Logistics & AdministrationProcess region-specific financial requests and advances within 48 hours of approvalCoordinate regional travel arrangements for programme teams, with all details confirmed 3 working days before travel.Maintain regional asset inventories, with quarterly verification completed for each operational region.Ensure region-specific programme materials are replenished and available when stock reaches minimum levels.Competencies:Bilingual Excellence: Superior written and verbal communication in English and FrenchPrecision: Exceptional attention to detail with 98%+ accuracy in all deliverablesOrganisation: Superior task management and prioritisation skillsPunctuality: Consistent adherence to deadlines and timelinesTech Proficiency: Advanced skills in Google Suite, Microsoft Office, and project management toolsIntegrity: unwavering ethical standards and honestyAdaptability: Flexibility in managing changing priorities and requirementsTeam Collaboration: Strong partnership-building across regions and functionsInitiative: Proactive problem-solving and anticipatory supportResilience: Ability to maintain performance under pressure

Multiple Locations
Full Time
L

Litigation Lawyer

Law Firm (by First Excelsia Professional Ltd)

First Excelsia Professional Services Limited is recruiting for their client, a reputable Law Firm, to fill the position of a Litigation Lawyer.Job DescriptionThe ideal candidate will have a strong background in litigation practice and courtroom advocacy, with a proven track record of handling complex cases.ResponsibilitiesHandle litigation matters across various jurisdictionsConduct courtroom advocacy, including trials, hearings, and appealsProvide expert advice on litigation strategy and risk managementCollaborate with clients, colleagues, and other stakeholders to resolve disputesManage and prioritize multiple cases, ensuring timely and efficient resolutionDevelop and maintain strong relationships with clients and stakeholders. 

Lagos
Full Time
N

Regulatory Relations Manager

Nigerian Breweries Plc

This is an exciting opportunity for a proactive and relationship-minded candidate. Would you be interested in championing our engagement with regulators and ensuring full compliance with evolving requirements? We are looking for a Regulatory Relations professional who will own and manage the Regulatory Monitoring Dashboard covering all licenses and permits critical to operational sustainability, while applying best practices in stakeholder management to support our business goals.KEY RESPONSIBILITIES Build and manage NB’s profile and relationships with license- and permit-issuing regulatory agencies, with focus on NAFDAC.Partner with Supply Chain and Legal to manage regulatory activities with NESREA, SON, and FCCPC.Ensure timely processing, tracking, and collection of permits, licenses, and approvals.Resolve consumer complaints in collaboration with consumers and relevant authorities.Monitor statutory permits and licenses to ensure renewals and compliance.Advise Innovation agenda with dashboards and insights to secure swift regulatory approvals for speed-to-market.Maintain an updated contact database of all regulatory agencies.Track and report complications in license and permit issuance to support Corporate Affairs in industry-level advocacy.Keep agency contact data complete and up to date.Develop structured platforms for stakeholder relationship management.Track changes in agency officers, directives, and policies, and maintain a regulatory stakeholder map and engagement plan.Anticipate regulatory issues and proactively mitigate risks to the business.Collaborate with peer companies to align industry positions on regulatory matters.Foster continuous two-way communication with regulatory agencies to build mutual trust and cooperation.

Lagos
Full Time

Discover Our Premium Features

Explore our comprehensive suite of tools designed to accelerate your legal career

LAWDLE Game

Test your legal terminology knowledge with our exciting word game!

Play Now
Pro

AI CV Generator

Create professional CVs in seconds with our AI-powered generator. Stand out with industry-specific templates and smart formatting.

AI-Powered
Professional Templates
Instant Download
Premium

Pro Career Plan

Unlock unlimited access to all premium features. Get priority support, advanced analytics, and exclusive career resources.

Unlimited Access
Priority Support
Advanced Analytics

Featured Law Scholarships

View All

The Anthony Ugochukwu Udokwu Foundation

Undergraduate
Applications are open to Nigerian university, polytechnic, or college of education students who aren’t currently recei...
Nigeria Deadline: Nov 14, 2025
Active

Female Scholars Foundation Scholarship

Undergraduate
Female Scholars Foundation is a non-profit organization set up to provide sponsorship for university education, guidance...
Nigeria Deadline: Dec 31, 2025
Active

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy PhD Scholarship

PH.D
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy PhD Scholarship (LKYSPP) is located in one of the most dynamic hubs for internation...
Singapore Deadline: Dec 10, 2025
Active

The University of Minnesota Global Excellence Scholarship

Undergraduate
All international students who apply by the deadline are automatically considered for a Global Excellence Scholarship. T...
USA Deadline: Nov 15, 2025
Active

University of Alabama Scholarship

Undergraduate
The University of Alabama offers some of the most generous scholarship opportunities in the country for qualifying stude...
USA Deadline: Dec 15, 2025
Active

Clark University Presidential Scholarship

Merit-Based
The Clark University Presidential Scholarship is a fully funded undergraduate award for a select number of international...
USA Deadline: Feb 01, 2026
Active

University of California, Berkley African Legal Impact Scholarship

Merit-Based
The African Legal Impact Scholarship was developed to encourage enrollment of students from Africa seeking advanced lega...
Berkeley, California Deadline: Nov 18, 2025
Active

University of Calgary International Entrance Scholarship

International
Offered annually to undergraduate international students entering first year in any undergraduate degree in the upcoming...
Canada Deadline: Dec 01, 2025
Active

Latest Career Insights

View All
Your Scholarship Journey Doesn’t Start with an Essay
Latest

Your Scholarship Journey Doesn’t Start with an Essay

“If I had six hours to chop down a tree, I’d spend the first four sharpening the axe.”  Abraham Lincoln Your scholarship journey doesn’t start with an essay. I learned this firsthand.I was awarded the Commonwealth Shared Scholarship to study International Law in the United Kingdom during the 2022/2023 academic session, but it did not happen on my first try. The first year I applied, I thought I had done everything right. I started preparing about a month before the scholarship deadline, which to me then seemed early enough. I wrote my essays diligently and submitted before the deadline.However, I was utterly disappointed when I received a rejection email a few months later. I asked myself, “How could they? I put in a lot of effort.”I applied again the following year, and this time, I was successful. So, what changed? Two things: information and preparation.In my second attempt, I began preparing almost a year ahead. I had realised that every scholarship application needs a hook, and how well you fit into that hook and its appeal to the selection committee often determine your chances. In other words, you need a relevant niche and a coherent, compelling story that ties together your experiences, interests, reasons for applying, and future aspirations.All these take time. So, if you are planning to apply for a scholarship, here is my advice: start early. Do not wait until the call for applications opens. Identify your theme and your overall story, because they are not the same. Read till the end and I will briefly explain the difference. Then highlight any gaps and start working to fill them.Every activity you engage in, including volunteering, short courses, and work experiences, becomes a building block for your narrative. And if your path is not perfect or linear, that is okay. What matters is how you tell your story. Explain the gaps and show growth and purpose.When the time comes to write your essays, do not rush it. Gather information. Read successful applications and consult others who have been through the process, either in person or through their online content on platforms such as YouTube or LinkedIn.Finally, remember that applying for scholarships takes resilience and patience. Some people get it on their first try, while others, like me, get it after learning from failure. Most importantly, put your best foot forward and leave the rest to God.Bonus tip: In this context, your theme is the niche or central focus that runs consistently through your entire application. Your story is the narrative that ties together your experiences, your motivation for applying, and your future aspirations.

Cheat Codes to Passing Watson Glaser Tests for Law firms  (Please keep this secret)
Latest

Cheat Codes to Passing Watson Glaser Tests for Law firms (Please keep this secret)

In the high-stakes world of legal recruitment, where top-tier firms sift through thousands of ambitious applicants, one test stands between you and the job of your dreams: the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. It's not a memory drill on torts or a speed-read of contracts, it's a razor-sharp probe into your ability to dissect arguments, spot hidden flaws, and draw conclusions that hold up under fire. Picture this: You're advising a client on a multimillion-pound merger, sifting through red flags in due diligence, or cross-examining a witness whose story doesn't add up. That's the real-world muscle the Watson Glaser builds, and tests.Why does it matter so much? Top firms may use it to spot thinkers who won't crumble under pressure, who can navigate ambiguity like a seasoned barrister in court. With pass rates hovering around 70% for top scorers, it's the gatekeeper that separates the pack from the partners-to-be. But here's the good news: It's learnable. This guide, crafted for law students and juniors eyeing vacation schemes, breaks it down batch by batch, no fluff, just battle-tested strategies. We'll start with the essentials, then dive into each of the five categories: Inference, Recognition of Assumptions, Deduction, Interpretation, and Evaluation of Arguments. By the end, you'll not only ace the test but think like the lawyer firms crave, one who turns facts into wins.Ready to sharpen your edge? Let's roll. 1. Inference: Assessing the Degree of Certainty in ConclusionsThe Inference section of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal requires candidates to determine the extent to which a conclusion follows from a provided statement or passage. This skill is fundamental to critical analysis, as it trains the mind to evaluate evidence with precision, distinguishing between what is definitively supported, highly probable, indeterminate, unlikely, or outright contradicted. In professional contexts, such as legal reasoning, this mirrors the evaluation of evidentiary inferences in case preparation, where one must ascertain whether a chain of facts reasonably supports a claim without overextension.To excel, adhere to these core principles:True: The conclusion follows beyond reasonable doubt, with no plausible alternative interpretation.Probably True: The conclusion is more likely than not, supported by the preponderance of evidence (typically 70% or greater likelihood based on the text).Insufficient Data: The information provided neither confirms nor refutes the conclusion; additional facts are required.Probably False: The conclusion is less likely than not, as the evidence leans against it without absolute disproof.False: The conclusion directly contradicts the given information.A critical guideline is to base judgments solely on the passage, supplemented only by general knowledge where it does not introduce speculation. Avoid injecting domain-specific assumptions; instead, methodically map the inference to the facts. This discipline prevents common errors, such as conflating correlation with causation or presuming completeness in incomplete data sets.Example Question :Statement: Two hundred school students in their early teens voluntarily attended a recent weekend student conference in Leeds. At this conference, the topics of race relations and means of achieving lasting world peace were discussed, since these were problems that the students selected as being most vital in today's world.Inference: As a group, the students who attended this conference showed a keener interest in broad social problems than do most other people in their early teens.Rating Options: True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False, False.Step-by-Step Solution:Identify the key elements of the statement: The students (early teens) voluntarily attended a conference focused on significant social issues (race relations and world peace), which they themselves deemed vital.Evaluate the inference against the facts: The voluntary participation and self-selection of topics indicate a heightened engagement with these issues, which are not typical weekend activities for most adolescents. General knowledge supports that such proactive involvement in substantive discussions is uncommon among this age group, who often prioritize leisure over societal concerns.Assess the degree of certainty: While the statement strongly implies greater interest, it does not provide comparative data on "most other people" or rule out alternative motivations (e.g., social networking). Thus, the conclusion is highly probable but not definitive. Correct Answer: Probably True.Detailed Explanation of a Real Examination-Style Question:Consider another authentic example from the same official practice materials, which closely replicates the inference challenges encountered in recruitment assessments for legal roles.Statement: Studies have shown that there is relatively much more heart disease among people living in the north of England than people living in the south of England. There is little if any difference, however, in rate of heart disease between northerners and southerners who have the same level of income. The average income of southerners in England is considerably higher than the average income of northerners.Inference: People in high income brackets are in a better position to avoid developing heart disease than people in low income brackets.Rating Options: True, Probably True, Insufficient Data, Probably False, False.Step-by-Step Solution:Dissect the statement: Regional disparity exists (higher rates in the north), but it vanishes when income is equalized across regions. Southerners, on average, enjoy higher incomes.Link to the inference: The overall lower rates in the south correlate with higher average incomes, suggesting that income level influences heart disease risk. When incomes match, rates match—implying lower-income groups (prevalent in the north) face elevated risks relative to higher-income groups.Determine the likelihood: This follows with strong probabilistic support from the income-rate equalization, but the statement does not explicitly attribute causation (e.g., lifestyle factors tied to income). General knowledge of socioeconomic health gradients reinforces the probability without guaranteeing it. No direct contradiction exists, yet full proof would require isolating income as the sole variable. Correct Answer: Probably True.Explanation: This question tests the ability to infer socioeconomic implications from aggregate data, a skill directly applicable to analyzing statistical evidence in public law or regulatory compliance matters. The "probably" rating avoids overreach: while the evidence points convincingly toward income as a protective factor, the passage leaves room for unmentioned confounders, such as diet or access to healthcare. In a timed test environment, candidates often err by selecting "True" due to intuitive appeal, but precision demands acknowledging evidential limits. Practicing such items hones the judgment needed for evaluating probabilistic claims in affidavits or expert reports, where overconfident inferences can undermine a case.To reinforce mastery, review similar questions from our test platform, focusing on why "Insufficient Data" applies to unsupported extrapolations. This section typically comprises 5-10 questions in the full appraisal; allocate no more than 1-2 minutes per item to maintain pacing.With Inference under your belt, proceed to the next category: Recognition of Assumptions, where we uncover the unspoken foundations of arguments.2. Recognition of Assumptions: Identifying Unstated Beliefs in a StatementThe Recognition of Assumptions section evaluates the capacity to detect implicit premises or presuppositions that underpin a statement, even if not explicitly articulated. This skill is essential for rigorous analysis, as it reveals the foundational beliefs upon which arguments rest, often exposing vulnerabilities in reasoning. In professional settings, such as legal argumentation or policy evaluation, recognizing assumptions prevents the acceptance of flawed propositions—much like identifying unproven elements in a contractual clause or statutory interpretation that could invalidate an entire case.Key principles to internalize include:Assumption Made: The proposed assumption is necessary for the statement's logic to hold; without it, the statement loses coherence or persuasive force. It must be directly relevant and not merely tangential.Assumption Not Made: The statement stands independently, or the proposed idea is extraneous, overly specific, or not required to bridge any logical gaps.A pivotal technique is the "Negative Test": Rephrase the proposed assumption in negative form (e.g., "It is not the case that...") and insert it into the statement. If the statement remains valid, the assumption was not made; if it collapses, it was. Additionally, distinguish assumptions from implications (which follow from the statement) or generalizations (which extend beyond it). Limit reliance to the text and general plausibility, eschewing specialized knowledge. This section often proves challenging, comprising around 12 questions, so allocate 1-2 minutes per item, practicing to spot relevance swiftly.Example Question (Drawn from Official Practice Materials):Statement: It is unwise to take this route if you cannot swim.Proposed Assumption: There is a river along the route.Answer Options: Assumption Made, Assumption Not Made.Step-by-Step Solution:Examine the statement: The advice hinges on swimming ability as a risk factor for the route.Apply the Negative Test: Rephrase as "There is no river along the route." Inserting this negates the wisdom of the warning, rendering the statement illogical—why mention swimming otherwise?Assess relevance: The assumption directly explains the peril, forming an essential link without which the caution is baseless. Correct Answer: Assumption Made.This item, adapted from standard Watson-Glaser practice exercises, underscores the need for contextual necessity; alternative explanations (e.g., a wizard disliking non-swimmers) are implausible and thus dismissed.Detailed Explanation of a Real Examination-Style Question:Drawing from verified preparation resources, consider this authentic example, which mirrors the format and complexity of those in recruitment assessments.Statement: I am planning a trip to China. I don't speak any Chinese. However, I can download a translator app that will allow me to communicate effectively.Proposed Assumption: The translator app will enable me to overcome the language barrier during my trip.Answer Options: Assumption Made, Assumption Not Made.Step-by-Step Solution:Dissect the statement: The first sentence outlines the plan; the second identifies a problem (language gap); the third proposes a solution (app download).Probe for the gap: The transition from problem to solution implies the app addresses the issue directly; without assuming its efficacy, the "however" clause fails to resolve the concern logically.Evaluate using the Negative Test: Negate as "The translator app will not enable effective communication." This undermines the statement's optimism, making the solution seem inadequate and the overall narrative inconsistent. The assumption is thus integral, connecting the obstacle to its purported remedy under reasonable doubt. Correct Answer: Assumption Made.Explanation: This question, sourced from comprehensive Watson-Glaser preparation modules, tests the detection of solution-oriented presuppositions, a common pitfall where candidates overlook the implied efficacy. The "assumption made" designation arises because the statement's persuasive flow relies on the app's success; absent this, it devolves into mere listing without progression. In a test context, errors often stem from viewing the app mention as descriptive rather than assumptive, but the conditional structure ("however") demands linkage. This mirrors real-world analytical tasks, such as assessing reliance on unproven contingencies in business proposals or affidavits, where unchallenged assumptions can lead to costly oversights. For reinforcement, engage with similar items from our online test platformMastering this category sharpens discernment for hidden dependencies; proceed to the next: Deduction, where conclusions must follow inexorably from premises. 3. Deduction: Determining Logical Necessity from PremisesThe Deduction section of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal demands the evaluation of whether a proposed conclusion necessarily follows from a set of given premises, with no room for probability or external conjecture. This skill cultivates deductive rigor, akin to constructing airtight syllogisms in legal syllogistic reasoning—where statutes (premises) must inexorably lead to case outcomes (conclusions) without interpretive latitude. It distinguishes valid entailment from mere plausibility, ensuring arguments remain unassailable.Essential principles to commit to memory:Conclusion Follows (YES): The conclusion is logically compelled by the premises; it must be true if the premises are true, barring no exceptions or additional assumptions.Conclusion Does Not Follow (NO): The conclusion may be true in reality or seem intuitive, but it does not derive directly from the premises; counterexamples or gaps exist within the logical structure.Employ the "Validity Chain" method: Rephrase premises into categorical terms (e.g., "All A are B"), then apply the conclusion as a test proposition. If it emerges inescapably, it follows; if the premises permit alternatives, it does not. Confine analysis to the text, ignoring real-world validations—this section, with approximately 5-10 items, rewards swift pattern recognition, so target 1 minute per conclusion to sustain momentum.Example Question (Drawn from Official Practice Materials):Premises: Some holidays are rainy. All rainy days are boring.Proposed Conclusion: Some holidays are boring.Answer Options: Conclusion Follows (YES), Conclusion Does Not Follow (NO).Step-by-Step Solution:Formalize the premises: Premise 1 establishes a partial overlap (some holidays fall within the "rainy" category). Premise 2 categorically links "rainy" to "boring" (universal inclusion).Trace the entailment: The intersection of "some holidays" with "rainy" (from Premise 1) must inherit the "boring" attribute (from Premise 2), yielding "some holidays are boring" without contradiction or omission.Validate against alternatives: No premise allows for rainy holidays to evade boredom, nor does it restrict the overlap to zero instances. Correct Answer: Conclusion Follows (YES).This foundational example exemplifies the transitive property in deductive logic: partial sets propagate universal traits.Detailed Explanation of a Real Examination-Style Question:The following is an authentic multi-conclusion exercise from the official Pearson practice materials, reflecting the format's demand for discerning per-item validity amid interconnected premises.Premises: No responsible leader can avoid making difficult decisions. Some responsible leaders dislike making difficult decisions.Proposed Conclusions:9. Some difficult decisions are distasteful to some people.10. Irresponsible leaders avoid things they dislike.11. Some responsible leaders do things they dislike doing.Answer Options (per conclusion): Conclusion Follows (YES), Conclusion Does Not Follow (NO).Step-by-Step Solution:Formalize the premises: Premise 1 translates to "All responsible leaders make difficult decisions" (universal affirmative). Premise 2 introduces a subset ("Some responsible leaders dislike difficult decisions").Evaluate Conclusion 9: The subset from Premise 2 (dislike) directly attributes distaste to "difficult decisions" for those leaders (some people). This flows necessarily, as the premises link the decisions to the sentiment without qualifiers. Answer: YES.Evaluate Conclusion 10: The premises address only responsible leaders; no information pertains to irresponsible ones, their actions, or dislikes. This introduces an unbridged category, rendering it non-entailed. Answer: NO.Evaluate Conclusion 11: Combining Premise 1 (all responsible leaders make difficult decisions) with Premise 2 (some dislike them) compels that those "some" perform disliked actions. No escape clause exists in the premises. Answer: YES.Explanation: Sourced verbatim from the Pearson Watson-Glaser practice PDF, this question probes selective entailment, a frequent stumbling block where candidates extrapolate beyond defined scopes (e.g., to "irresponsible" leaders). The dual "YES" outcomes for 9 and 11 arise from the premises' tight syllogistic chain, while 10's "NO" highlights the peril of illicit major terms in logic. In assessment scenarios, overreach on extraneous conclusions often lowers scores, but methodical per-item dissection ensures accuracy. For deeper practice, consult the jobtest platform, analyzing why intuitive appeals (e.g., "leaders generally avoid dislikes") fail deductive muster.Proficiency in Deduction fortifies the logical spine of critical thinking; the next category, Interpretation, extends this to evidential weighing.3. Deduction: Determining if a Conclusion Must Logically Follow from PremisesThe Deduction section of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal assesses the ability to ascertain whether a proposed conclusion is logically compelled by a set of premises, without exception or qualification. This demands syllogistic reasoning: premises are treated as axiomatic truths, and conclusions must derive inescapably from them, akin to applying statutory provisions to undisputed facts in legal adjudication. Deviations based on external knowledge or intuition invalidate the process; the focus remains on structural necessity.Essential principles include:Conclusion Follows (YES): The conclusion is a direct, inevitable outcome of the premises, with no alternative possibilities within the given framework. It must apply universally to the defined scope (e.g., "some" implies at least one, potentially all).Conclusion Does Not Follow (NO): The premises permit scenarios where the conclusion is false, or it introduces elements beyond the premises (e.g., negation, causation, or unrelated classes).Employ the "Counterexample Test": Construct a plausible scenario consistent with the premises that falsifies the conclusion; if viable, mark NO. Quantifiers like "all," "some," and "no" carry precise logical weight—"some" denotes partial but non-zero inclusion. This section typically features 5-10 items, each with multiple conclusions; budget 1-2 minutes per exercise, diagramming sets (e.g., Venn) for complex relations to accelerate accuracy.Example Question (Drawn from Official Practice Materials):Statement (Premises):Some holidays are rainy.All rainy days are boring.Therefore:Proposed Conclusions:No clear days are boring.Some holidays are boring.Some holidays are not boring.Answer Options: For each conclusion, YES (Conclusion follows) or NO (Conclusion does not follow).Step-by-Step Solution:Parse the premises: Premise 1 establishes a partial overlap (some holidays ⊂ rainy days). Premise 2 asserts universality (rainy days → boring).For Conclusion 1: Test via counterexample—premises allow clear days (non-rainy) to be boring (no prohibition). Thus, it does not necessarily follow.For Conclusion 2: The overlap (some rainy holidays) combined with universality yields some boring holidays inescapably.For Conclusion 3: While possible (clear holidays exist implicitly), the premises do not compel it—rainy holidays could encompass all, making non-boring holidays unnecessary. Correct Answers: 1. NO; 2. YES; 3. NO.This foundational example, from the official Watson-Glaser practice appraisal (UK Edition), demonstrates quantifier interplay; mistaking possibility for necessity is a frequent error.Detailed Explanation of a Real Examination-Style Question:The following exercise, also from the official practice materials, exemplifies deductive chains involving negation and partial classes, common in assessments for analytical roles.Statement (Premises):No responsible leader can avoid making difficult decisions.Some responsible leaders dislike making difficult decisions.Therefore:Proposed Conclusions:9. Some difficult decisions are distasteful to some people.10. Irresponsible leaders avoid things they dislike.11. Some responsible leaders do things they dislike doing.Answer Options: For each conclusion, YES (Conclusion follows) or NO (Conclusion does not follow).Step-by-Step Solution:Interpret premises: Premise 1 equates to "All responsible leaders make difficult decisions" (negation of avoidance). Premise 2 indicates a subset of responsible leaders experiences dislike for these decisions.For Conclusion 9: The "some" leaders' dislike maps directly to difficult decisions being distasteful (synonymous) to that subset—inescapable from the overlap.For Conclusion 10: Premises address only responsible leaders; irresponsible ones are unmentioned, permitting scenarios where they confront dislikes (no logical bridge).For Conclusion 11: Premise 1 mandates action despite Premise 2's dislike for some—thus, those some perform disliked tasks necessarily. Correct Answers: 9. YES; 10. NO; 11. YES.Explanation: This item probes relational deductions, where candidates falter by extrapolating to undefined groups (e.g., Conclusion 10) or conflating "dislike" with avoidance. The YES for 9 and 11 hinges on the premises' intersection: universal obligation meets partial aversion, yielding compelled action amid distaste. NO for 10 enforces textual fidelity, deduction prohibits invention. In practice, this parallels deducing liability from contractual duties and partial breaches, where extraneous assumptions (e.g., on non-parties) derail claims. For proficiency, diagram premises as sets (responsible leaders → decisions; subset dislikes) and apply the Counterexample Test rigorously. Engage with the full PDF exercises, analyzing why "some" amplifies rather than dilutes necessity.Proficiency in Deduction fortifies logical chains; advance to the next category: Interpretation, evaluating whether evidence sustains conclusions beyond reasonable doubt.4. Interpretation: Weighing Evidence to Determine if a Conclusion is Warranted Beyond Reasonable DoubtThe Interpretation section of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal requires candidates to evaluate whether a proposed conclusion is justified by the evidence in a short passage, to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt." This differs from Deduction's absolute certainty, as Interpretation permits a probabilistic threshold: the conclusion must align closely with the passage's facts, principles, or data, without significant gaps or alternative explanations. In professional applications, such as legal evidence assessment or policy analysis, this skill ensures conclusions are defensible, avoiding overgeneralization from incomplete records.Core principles to apply:Conclusion Follows: The passage's evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, leaving minimal room for doubt; it must be a logical extension without introducing unsupported elements.Conclusion Does Not Follow: The evidence is ambiguous, contradictory, or insufficient; common fallacies include assuming causation from correlation, overextending quantifiers (e.g., "all" from "some"), or injecting unstated reasons.A recommended approach is the "Evidence Balance Test": Catalog supporting and opposing elements from the passage, then assess if support predominates convincingly. Watch for four key fallacies: Reason (unproven cause), Indefinite Pronoun (misapplying "all/none"), Correlation-Causation (link without proof), and Jumping to Conclusions (extraneous info). This section includes 6 questions; dedicate 1-2 minutes each, prioritizing textual fidelity over intuition.Example Question (Drawn from Official Practice Materials):Passage: A study showed vocabulary size increases from zero words at eight months to 2,562 words at six years old.Proposed Conclusion: None of the children in this study had learned to talk by the age of six months.Answer Options: Conclusion Follows, Conclusion Does Not Follow.Step-by-Step Solution:Analyze the passage: It details a progressive increase starting from zero words at eight months, implying no prior vocabulary development.Map to the conclusion: "Learned to talk" equates to acquiring words; zero at eight months (pre-six months) directly precludes any earlier learning.Apply the Evidence Balance Test: Full support with no counter-evidence or ambiguity, the trajectory is unidirectional from zero. Correct Answer: Conclusion Follows.This example highlights straightforward evidential alignment; errors arise from assuming "talking" requires more than words, which the passage does not specify.Detailed Explanation of a Real Examination-Style Question:The following item, sourced from comprehensive preparation resources mirroring official assessments, illustrates a classic Reason Fallacy.Passage: I have a nine-month-old baby at home who typically cooperates when it's time to go to bed and falls asleep quickly. However, whenever her grandparents come over in the evening, she becomes upset when I try to put her to bed and continues to cry for an hour.Proposed Conclusion: My baby’s difficulty is mostly physiological, her grandparents give her chocolates to eat and the sugar makes her hyperactive.Answer Options: Conclusion Follows, Conclusion Does Not Follow.Step-by-Step Solution:Break down the passage: Routine bedtime compliance contrasts with disruption during grandparent visits, centered on emotional upset (crying).Evaluate the conclusion: It posits a specific physiological cause (sugar from chocolates) not mentioned in the passage, relying on external speculation rather than evidential support.Conduct the Evidence Balance Test: The passage notes behavioral change tied to presence, not diet; no data on chocolates or hyperactivity exists, introducing unproven causation. This embodies the Reason Fallacy, where an individual rationale substitutes for textual proof, failing the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold. Correct Answer: Conclusion Does Not Follow.Explanation: Drawn from JobTestPrep's verified practice aligned with Watson-Glaser standards, this question exposes the peril of causal invention, candidates often select "Follows" from personal anecdote, but strict adherence reveals the evidential void. In a test setting, the passage's focus on timing (evenings with grandparents) suggests alternatives like excitement or routine disruption, underscoring why the conclusion lacks warrant. This parallels interpreting witness statements in trials, where ungrounded theories (e.g., "stress caused the inconsistency") must yield to facts alone. For deeper practice, consult our test platform, dissecting why indefinite extensions (e.g., "always") tip toward "Does Not Follow."Command of Interpretation refines evidential judgment; the final category awaits: Evaluation of Arguments, appraising persuasive strength.5. Evaluation of Arguments: Assessing the Strength of Support or OppositionThe Evaluation of Arguments section of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal challenges candidates to judge the persuasive merit of statements advanced in favor of or against a given proposition. This requires discerning relevance and cogency: arguments must directly address the issue and provide substantial, evidence-based weight, rather than tangential, emotive, or superficial commentary. In professional domains, such as legal advocacy or strategic advising, this skill is indispensable for constructing compelling briefs or rebutting opposing counsel, ensuring only robust content bolsters one's position.Fundamental principles to guide assessment:Strong Argument: The argument is directly pertinent to the proposition, offering significant evidential or logical support that materially advances the case (e.g., backed by data, principles, or clear causal links). It withstands scrutiny without reliance on assumptions or generalizations.Weak Argument: The argument is irrelevant (off-topic), insignificant (lacks impact), or flawed (e.g., anecdotal, circular, or ad hominem). Even relevant points falter if they provide minimal sway or introduce unproven elements.Adopt the "Relevance-Impact Framework": First, verify direct alignment with the proposition; second, gauge the argument's capacity to influence a reasonable evaluator (e.g., on a scale of substantial vs. negligible). Dismiss appeals to emotion or authority unless substantiated. This section often presents 10-12 items, each with 4-5 arguments; limit to 1 minute per argument, flagging irrelevance quickly to conserve time.Example Question:Proposition: Should company policy require all employees to take a one-hour lunch break?Argument: Yes; taking a lunch break would allow employees to recharge, leading to increased productivity in the afternoon.Answer Options: Strong Argument, Weak Argument.Step-by-Step Solution:Confirm relevance: The argument addresses productivity, a core benefit of breaks, tying directly to policy rationale (employee welfare and output).Evaluate impact: It posits a causal link (recharge → productivity) grounded in general psychological principles of rest, providing meaningful support without overreach.Framework application: Pertinent and persuasive, substantial enough to sway policy decisions. Correct Answer: Strong Argument.This exemplifies a balanced, principle-based argument; common misjudgments classify it as weak due to lacking empirical data, but general plausibility suffices here.Detailed Explanation of a Real Examination-Style Question:Consider this authentic example from verified preparation resources, reflecting the evaluative depth in recruitment tests.Proposition: Should the government increase funding for public libraries?Argument: Yes; a recent study of 500 urban residents found that 65% reported improved literacy skills after regular library visits, correlating with higher employment rates.Answer Options: Strong Argument, Weak Argument.Step-by-Step Solution:Assess relevance: The argument targets literacy and employment—key societal outcomes enhanced by libraries—aligning precisely with funding justification (public benefit).Measure impact: Empirical evidence (study sample, 65% correlation) delivers quantifiable weight, implying broad economic returns; the causal implication is reasonable without speculation.Apply the Framework: Directly on-point with high evidential heft, materially bolstering the "yes" case beyond mere opinion. No flaws like irrelevance or insignificance detract. Correct Answer: Strong Argument.Explanation: This question tests data-driven evaluation—a frequent stumbling block where candidates deem it weak for "correlation not causation." Yet, the argument's strength lies in its substantive contribution: the study's scale and outcomes provide persuasive leverage for policy advocacy, mirroring how statistical arguments fortify public interest litigation. In timed scenarios, haste leads to overlooking relevance; practice emphasizes scanning for "direct address" first. For further honing, check here, where weak examples (e.g., "Libraries are nice places") contrast by lacking evidential punch.ConclusionThe Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Test is a key tool used by law firms to check if you can think clearly and logically, like spotting flaws in arguments or drawing smart conclusions from facts, it's not about law knowledge but skills for real jobs like reviewing contracts or advising clients. It has five parts: Inference, where you judge if a conclusion is true, probably true, or just not enough info based on a statement (like saying "probably true" if facts strongly hint someone is home from lights and noise); Recognition of Assumptions, spotting hidden ideas a statement relies on without saying them (like assuming a route is dangerous because of a river); Deduction, seeing if a conclusion must follow from rules (like "some rainy holidays are boring" if all rainy days are boring); Interpretation, checking if evidence backs a conclusion solidly (like no kids talked by six months if vocab starts at eight); and Evaluation of Arguments, rating if a point strongly supports or weakly misses an idea (like a study proving libraries boost jobs making a strong case for more funding). To ace it, stick to the text only, practice mocks timed at 40 questions in 50 minutes for free here, review mistakes by category, and use tricks like testing negatives or counterexamples, master this, and you'll shine in interviews at places like Clifford Chance, turning test smarts into career wins.

Featured Law Events

View All

NBA-LWDF Annual General Conference 2025 “Beyond Triumphs: Advancing Inclusion, Impact, and Leadership for Persons with Disabilities”

Conference

📅 Date: Tuesday, November 25 – Wednesday, November 26, 2025 📍 Venue: Southend Event Cente...

Delta Nov 25, 2025

7th Privacy Symposium Africa

Workshop

PSA 2025 IS Here! 26-28 Nov, Nigeria The 7th Privacy Symposium Africa (PSA 2025) will serve as a p...

Lagos Nov 26, 2025

MEDIATION ADVOCACY SKILLS CERTIFICATION TRAINING.

Training

The Nigerian Bar Association Institute of Continuing Legal Education (NBA-ICLE) is pleased to announ...

Remote Nov 26, 2025

CALL FOR ENTRIES: NBA-SPIDEL 2025 ESSAY, POETRY & SPOKEN WORD COMPETITION

Award Ceremony

The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL) is pleased ...

Akwa Ibom Dec 02, 2025

Introduction to the Jurisprudence of Digital Data Secrecy Law

Training

TRAINING ANNOUNCEMENT: NBA-ICLE APPROVED TRAINING BY NBA-ICLE ACCREDITED SERVICE PROVIDER- CYBERROBO...

Remote Dec 06, 2025

Medical Law Committee Annual Conference

Conference

Hosted by the African Bar Association, this conference focuses on legal and ethical practices in hea...

Merit House, 22 Aguiyi Ironsi Street, Maitama, Abuja, Nigeria Dec 10, 2025

Introduction to the Jurisprudence of Tele-Health Law

Training

TRAINING ANNOUNCEMENT: NBA-ICLE APPROVED TRAINING BY NBA-ICLE ACCREDITED SERVICE PROVIDER- CYBERROBO...

Remote Dec 13, 2025

S. P. A. Ajibade & Co Essay Competition in line With It's 18th Annual Business Luncheon

Award Ceremony

S. P. A. Ajibade & Co. invites lawyers with 1–7 years post-call experience to participate in its 2...

Lagos Dec 18, 2025