Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S1 · Q1 Extract from lease: The tenant should

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

  • 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

Start practicing free

Extract from lease: The tenant should record all preexisting damage on the preexisting damage list, because the tenant need not pay for preexisting damage recorded there.

Evidence

The tenant need not pay for PD + R → ~TP preexisting damage recorded on the preexisting damage list.

The tenant must pay for damage ~R → TP that was not recorded on the preexisting damage list, except BTC → ~TP for any damage caused by a circumstance beyond the tenant’s control.

Conclusion

The tenant is not required to pay ~TP for the damage.

Evaluate

There are two reasons that PD + R establish that the tenant is not required to pay. First, if the damage is preexisting and was recorded on the preexisting damage list.

And second, if the damage BTC was caused by circumstances beyond the tenant’s control.

1.

In which one of the following instances does the extract from the lease most strongly support the view that the tenant is not required to pay for the damage?

  1. a hole in the wall

    Contradiction

    The tenant would be R + BTC required to pay for damage that was not recorded on the preexisting damage list and was caused by a circumstance within the tenant’s control.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    a crack in a window

    Why this is right

    The tenant is not required to BTC pay for damage caused by a circumstance beyond the tenant’s control.

    Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    93% picked this

  3. a tear in the linoleum

    Contradiction

    The tenant would be required PD + BTC to pay for damage that was not preexisting and caused by a circumstance within the tenant’s control.

    1% picked this

  4. a missing light fixture that

    Contradiction

    The tenant would be required PD + BTC to pay for damage that was not preexisting and caused by a circumstance within the tenant’s control.

    1% picked this

  5. paint splatters on the carpet

    Too Weak

    This does not make clear PD + R whether the paint splatters were beyond the tenant’s control. While this does indicate that there was preexisting damage, it was not recorded on the preexisting damage list. It’s possible the paint splatters were within the tenant’s control (especially if the tenant lived there before the lease was created).

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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