Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT101 S3 Q8 Explanation

Jones is selling a house to Smith.

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMust be True

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Jones is selling a house to Smith. The contract between the two specifies that for up to a year after ownership is transferred, Jones will be responsible for repairing any “major structural defects,” defined as defects in the roof or roof-supporting components of the house, that might be found. Jones is not that the only walls that support the roof are the exterior walls.

What this question is testing

Must be True

Conclusion

This is a fact-set, not an argument. Your job is to combine the contract rules with the architectural fact about truss roofs and see what falls out.

Evidence

The contract is narrow. Jones is on the hook for "major structural defects," defined as roof-or-roof-supporting-component defects, and explicitly nothing else. Then the architectural fact: in a truss-roof house, the only walls that support the roof are the exterior walls.

Evaluate

Combine those: in this specific house, "roof-supporting components" means roof + exterior walls. Interior walls don't support the roof and don't count as "roof-supporting components." Since Jones is responsible only for roof / roof-supporting defects (not anything else), Jones has no obligation to repair defects in the interior walls.

Be careful with answers that introduce facts the passage doesn't establish — what Jones knew, what condition the house is currently in, what Smith might owe, etc. Must Be True only allows what the given facts force.

Goal

Pick the answer that says the contract doesn't require Jones to repair nonexterior-wall defects.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
8.

It can be properly concluded from the information

Answer choices

  1. Unsupported2% picked this

    Jones did not know of any defects in the roof or roof-supporting components of the house at the

    The passage tells us nothing about what Jones knew when the contract was written. Jones could have known about defects, suspected them, or had no idea — the passage gives no information either way. Must Be True answers can't fill in unstated facts about people's knowledge.

  2. Unsupported2% picked this

    although other components of the house may contain defects, the roof and roof-supporting components of the house are

    The passage doesn't tell us the current state of the roof or roof-supporting components. They might be defect-free, or they might have hidden defects that haven't been discovered yet. The contract just specifies who pays for repairs if defects show up — it doesn't say whether any currently exist.

  3. Correct78% picked this

    the contract does not oblige Jones to repair any defects in the house’s nonexterior walls after ownership of

    Why this is right

    This follows from the chain. Jones is on the hook only for roof and roof-supporting-component defects, and explicitly nothing else. In this truss-roof house, the only walls that support the roof are the exterior walls. So the nonexterior (interior) walls aren't roof-supporting and don't fall under Jones's repair obligation. The contract therefore does not oblige Jones to repair defects in the interior walls.

    Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

  4. Unsupported17% picked this

    Smith will be obligated to repair all structural defects in the house within a year after ownership is transferred, except those

    The passage describes Jones's obligations under the contract; it says nothing about what Smith is or isn't obligated to do. Smith may or may not have responsibilities for non-Jones-covered repairs depending on contract terms not given in the passage. We can't infer Smith's repair obligations from what we're told.

  5. Unsupported1% picked this

    in the past Jones has had to make repairs to some of the

    The passage gives no history of past repairs or defects in the exterior walls. We have no information about what has happened to this house before. This is a fact about the past that the passage simply doesn't supply.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free