Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 3 · Question 2

Incorrect. The Principle doesn't raise any consideration for fixing a defect.

Incorrect. The Principle doesn't raise any consideration about the amount of money an item was sold for.

Incorrect. In both cases, it means it's not working as intended. There's no equivocation here.

Incorrect. The Principle only talks about what the seller does, not how it was received by the buyer. The Principle can justify a conclusion of fraud even if the buyer knows they're being defrauded.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Errors in Reasoning)

Stimulus Summary:
P: Knowingly sell defective item AND Lie → Fraud

A: Wilton didn't know much about a bike he sold but said it was in good condition. It wasn't, so he's committed fraud.

Answer Anticipation:
In order to justify a conclusion that someone is guilty of fraud based on the Principle provided, it must be established that the person selling an item knew that something was defective and told the buyer it wasn't. Here, the item was defective, but Wilton knew "very little" about the condition of the bike. While he probably shouldn't have said that it was in "good working condition" without knowing if that were true, the principle specifically states that the person has to know the item to be defective before that fraud conclusion can be justified.

So the argument here jumps from a Principle about knowing an item is defective to an Application where someone doesn't really know the condition of the bike but says it's fine.

Answer Explanation:
The Principle has a sufficient condition of making a knowingly false statement. While Wilton's statement was false, the Application only establishes that he had no justification to say the bike was in good working condition (he knew little about its condition). This answer highlights that shift from making a statement without basis (what Wilton did) and making a statement known to be false (what the Principle requires).

Key Takeaway:
What someone knows, thinks, or believes is frequently important on the LSAT. When that language is used, make sure that it matches up with other places relying on it and that the argument doesn't shift to talking about objective facts.