Can you check my reasoning about eliminating "B" please?
P:Many prospective buyers of the home are likely to assume that large appliances in the home would be included with its purchase.
C:If sellers are going to keep the appliances they are morally obliged to indicate in some way that the appliances are not included.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most help to justify the real estate agent's argumentation?
First two sentences are irrelevant for the argument. We can only infer from these sentences that sellers are legally entitled to remove large appliances but conclusion is a prescription for action.
(B) A home's sellers are morally obliged to ensure that prospective buyers of the home do not assume that any large appliances are permanent fixtures in the home.
"to ensure that prospective buyers do not assume that large appliances are permanent fixtures" has nothing to do with conclusion that sellers who will be keeping large appliances are obliged to indicate that the appliances are not part of the deal.
Argument doesn't tell anything about what necessary or at least helpful in order to ensure that prospective buyers do not assume that large appliances are permanent fixtures
If we ensure that all prospective buyers don't treat large appliances like permanent fixtures they can still assume that these appliances should be included in the deal unless they know about laws mentioned in the first two sentences and we can't simply assume that prospective buyers have any idea about these laws. However, even if we assume that prospective buyers know about laws mentioned in the first two sentences, "B" would lend support to idea that prospective buyers will stop assuming that large appliances are part of the deal. This idea is different from argument's conclusion because conclusion is talking about what sellers are morally obliged to do.
It seems to me that "B" is trying to push me further than conclusion. Conclusion is talking about what sellers are morally obliged to do in order to not let prospective buyers to fall into the trap of assuming that large appliances are part of the deal. And "B" is suggesting another way how to help prospective buyers by eradicating their assumption.
Also do you have any suggestions about how to treat strange, wordy or mouthful answer choices? Sometimes under timed conditions I don't have enough time to uncover all logic behind such answer choices. This makes me feel that such answers could be correct and I just didn't understand what was going on in the argument.
Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:35 pm
- and this is precisely the reason to eliminate B. The question asks for a principle that would be sufficient ("most helps") to justify the conclusion. The fact that prospective buyers can still assume means the test of sufficiency failed.If we ensure that all prospective buyers don't treat large appliances like permanent fixtures they can still assume that these appliances should be included in the deal
"A" on the other hand is a little stronger than what we need: "buyers might assume" vs. "buyers are likely to assume". But stronger is good because it does satisfy the sufficiency.
I think if you focus on looking for an answer that meets the sufficiency test, you'll quickly eliminate all others that do not.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests