LSAT 134 – Section 3 – Question 02

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 02

October 2011

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:51

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT134 S3 Q02
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
1%
157
B
0%
149
C
3%
157
D
0%
155
E
95%
165
121
132
142
 +Easiest 146.872 +SubsectionMedium

Principle: If you sell an item that you know to be defective, telling the buyer that the item is sound, you thereby commit fraud.

Application: Wilton sold a used bicycle to Harris, knowing very little about its condition. Wilton told Harris that the bicycle was in good working condition, but Harris soon learned that the brakes were defective. Wilton was therefore guilty of fraud.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Wilton was guilty of fraud. This is based on the following:

If one sells an item that they know is defective, but tells the buyer that the item is not defective, that constitutes fraud.
Wilton sold a bicycle to Harris, without knowing whether it was defective.
Wilton told Harris the bicycle was not defective, but it turned out to be defective.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Wilton knew the bicycle was defective. But all we know is that Wilton didn’t know about the bicycle’s condition. He might not have known that it was defetive.

A
the application fails to establish whether Wilton was given the opportunity to repair the brakes
Whether one has the opportunity to fix an item has nothing to do with the principle.
B
the application fails to indicate how much money Wilton received for the bicycle
The amount of money received for an item has nothing to do with the principle.
C
the application uses the word “defective” in a sense that is crucially different from how it is used in the statement of the principle
The word “defective” is not used in two different ways.
D
Harris might not have believed Wilton’s statement about the bicycle’s condition
Whether the buyer believes what the seller says has nothing to do with the principle.
E
asserting something without justification is not the same as asserting something one knows to be false
Wilton asserted that the bicycle was not defective, even though he didn’t have justification for that claim. But this is not the same as saying that an item is not defective while knowing that it is. Wilton did not know it was defective.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 134 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply