PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 5
Solicitor: Loux named Zembaty executor of her will.(82 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AThe estate's debts(10 more words not shown)
- BLoux repeatedly told(12 more words not shown)
- CLoux was well(14 more words not shown)
- DThe Stoke Farm(8 more words not shown)
- ELoux's grandson had(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not expressing a preference isn't the same as having no preference.
Zembaty had to sell property to pay the estate's debts before distributing the remainder. That's the job the passage gives him. But which property should he sell? The fact that Loux never expressed a particular wish about Stoke Farm doesn't tell us she would have been indifferent to losing it.
What we’re looking for
Maybe she had a reason to want this property to reach her grandson, even though she never singled it out. We should also separate whether Zembaty met his stated responsibilities from whether Loux would have objected to his choice. The conclusion concerns her likely reaction. For the weakener, I'd look for a reason the farm mattered to her or a reason she would have preferred her grandson to receive it.
Working the answers
- A
If selling the farm was necessary to clear the debts, that gives a practical reason for Zembaty's decision. It doesn't prove Loux would have been happy about the sale, but it supplies no evidence that she would have wanted a different choice. It points toward the sale's necessity rather than toward the objection we need.
- B
A promise to take care of the grandson could be fulfilled with the other property he inherits. We already know he was the only beneficiary and that Loux was fond of him. B doesn't connect that general concern to this particular farm. Why would selling the farm, rather than another asset, conflict with her intention? B doesn't tell us.
- C
Awareness of the executor's requirements doesn't establish a preference about which property to sell. If anything, knowing a choice had to be made while leaving no specific direction gives the solicitor another reason to treat the choice as left to Zembaty. It doesn't prove indifference, but it doesn't supply a reason to believe Loux would object to this sale.
- D
Where the debt came from doesn't settle which property Loux wanted her grandson to receive. A farm could have caused substantial debts and still have mattered to her. Or she could have wanted it sold. D doesn't give us a basis for choosing between those reactions.
- ECorrect
At first, this may seem to concern the wrong person's wishes: the grandson's, rather than Loux's. But connect it with what we already know. Loux was very fond of him and made him her only beneficiary. His repeatedly expressed wish to own a farm gives her a possible reason to want him to receive this property. Stoke Farm contains the estate's only farmland.
That doesn't prove she knew about every wish he expressed or that she would definitely have kept the farm for him. It does give us a reason to doubt the solicitor's easy move from no expressed preference to probably no objection. The other choices never make that connection between this particular property and something Loux might care about.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.