Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT129 S1 Q1 Explanation

Extract from lease: The tenant should

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

TopicsPrinciple-Conform

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

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. The tenant must pay for damage that was not recorded on the preexisting by a circumstance beyond the tenant's control.

What this question is testing

Principle-Conform

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
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

Answer choices

  1. Contradiction3% picked this

    a hole in the wall that was not recorded on the preexisting damage list and that was the result of an

    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.

  2. Correct93% picked this

    a crack in a window caused by a factor beyond the tenant's control and not recorded on

    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.

  3. Contradiction1% picked this

    a tear in the linoleum that was not preexisting but that was caused by one

    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.

  4. Contradiction1% picked this

    a missing light fixture that was present when the tenant moved in but was later

    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.

  5. Too Weak2% picked this

    paint splatters on the carpet that should have been recorded on the preexisting damage list

    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).

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