PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 1
Extract from lease: The tenant should record all(45 more words not shown)
In which one of the(24 more words not shown)
- Aa hole in(23 more words not shown)
- Ba crack in(18 more words not shown)
- Ca tear in(16 more words not shown)
- Da missing light(16 more words not shown)
- Epaint splatters on(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If the hole was already in the wall when I moved in, I want that on the list. Otherwise, when I move out, the landlord may charge me for it. The protection in this lease depends on recording the preexisting damage, not merely on the damage having been there first.
The lease also gives us an exception for damage caused by something beyond the tenant's control. Suppose a hurricane knocks a tree onto the building after I move in. Of course that damage wouldn't appear on the initial list; it hadn't happened yet. But its absence from the list doesn't put it under the ordinary payment requirement, because the cause was outside my control.
What we’re looking for
The question asks which tenant has the strongest support for not having to pay. So look for one of those protections: recorded preexisting damage, or damage caused by a circumstance beyond the tenant's control. Saying that damage should have been recorded is different from saying that it actually was.
Working the answers
- A
Both details point toward payment. The hole wasn't recorded, and its cause was within the tenant's control. Imagine the tenant punching the wall. Neither the recorded-damage protection nor the beyond-control exception applies.
- BCorrect
The window crack wasn't recorded, but its cause was beyond the tenant's control. That brings it within the explicit exception to the rule requiring payment for unrecorded damage. A windstorm breaking a window illustrates how that exception could apply. Of these choices, B has the strongest support in the extract for excusing the tenant from payment.
- C
The tear wasn't preexisting, so the first protection doesn't apply. And saying that a child caused it doesn't establish that the cause was beyond the tenant's control. We would have to add that missing fact to invoke the exception.
- D
The fixture was there when the tenant arrived, and the tenant later removed it. That describes the tenant's own action, not recorded preexisting damage or damage from an uncontrollable circumstance.
- E
This is the distinction we needed to keep straight. The splatters should have been recorded, but weren't. The lease protects preexisting damage recorded on the list; it doesn't offer that protection merely because the tenant could have recorded it. E also doesn't establish a cause beyond the tenant's control.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.