A reversal of logic in question 1? PT 50 Section 2

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

A reversal of logic in question 1? PT 50 Section 2

Postby sdwarrior403 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:54 pm

If it is pre-existing damage and you record it, then you are not required to pay for it.

If you are not required to pay, then it was any damage beyond the tenant's control.

The question is asking us what supports the judgement of not required to pay.

Answer choice B tells me that it was a factor beyond the tenant's control. To believe that this would give a judgement of not required to pay would be a reversal of logic.

User avatar
sdwarrior403
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: A reversal of logic in question 1? PT 50 Section 2

Postby sdwarrior403 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:47 pm

Bump

User avatar
arcanecircle
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:33 am

Re: A reversal of logic in question 1? PT 50 Section 2

Postby arcanecircle » Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:57 pm

There's not any if statements in this question. It's asking you to apply a principle to the ACs and choose the one where the tenant wouldn't have to pay. This is how I read it:

Any damage on the list does not have to be paid
Any damage not on the list has to be paid unless it was beyond the tenant's control.

A) Within the tenant's control + not on the list. Gotta pay
B) Not within the tenants control + not on the list. Fits exemption, check other ACs to be sure.
C) Within the tenants control + not on the list. Gotta pay.
D) Not preexisting damage, within tenant's control. (Might not even qualify as damage)
E) Not on the list, but no indication whether it was beyond the tenant's control.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 34iplaw and 5 guests