That's an interesting question ericha3535! First, I'll say that this particular phrasing is pretty rare. Even in the example you cite, the first 'if' clause merely sets the stage for the discussion, and as such, including it in the the formal logic diagramming is not strictly necessary to solve that question.
That being said, there are a number of ways to express this kind of complex conditional expression, but the most useful is to simply see that there are two separate sufficient clauses and a single necessary clause. As such, it can be expressed as:
The two 'if' statements are linked with an 'and' because they are nested ideas, not independent ones. To take (and twist!) your analogy a bit, consider the statement
"If I eat 10000 calories, then I will gain weight unless I work out."Translating the 'unless' to 'if not', this statement has three pieces:
If I eat 10000 calories and
If I don't work out
Then I will gain weight
C and ~WO --> GW
~GW --> ~C or WONote that if you translate 'unless' by replacing it with an arrow and negating the other clause, this would end up as:
If I eat 10000 calories and
If I do not gain weight
Then I must work out.
C and ~GW --> WO
~WO --> ~C or GWThough these look a bit different, they are actually logically equivalent statements.
As important as it is to understand how to correctly diagram formal logic, it's also critical to realize when and where diagramming is both unnecessary and potentially confusing. Before tying yourself in knots to diagram a particularly tricky phrasing, take a step back to see if the conditional involved is really at play in the question. You just might find, as in PT62, S4, Q18, that you don't actually need it.
Please let me know if this answered your question!