PrepTest 134, Section 3, Question 2
Principle: If you sell an item that you(56 more words not shown)
The application of the principle(9 more words not shown)
- Athe application fails(12 more words not shown)
- Bthe application fails(10 more words not shown)
- Cthe application uses(21 more words not shown)
- DHarris might not(8 more words not shown)
- Easserting something without(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Did Wilton know the brakes were defective?
That's the fact we need before applying this rule. Think of selling a broken computer. If you know it's broken and tell the buyer it works, you fit the principle. If you say, “It doesn't work, but you can use it for parts,” you aren't making the false assurance the principle describes. The seller's knowledge and what the seller tells the buyer both matter.
Wilton did claim the bicycle was in good working condition. But he knew very little about its condition. Harris later discovered the defective brakes; that doesn't tell us what Wilton knew at the time of the sale. Perhaps Wilton made a careless claim without checking. Perhaps he knew about the brakes. We aren't given enough to decide.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, keep that missing fact in view. An unsupported assurance isn't automatically a deliberate lie. The application treats the discovery of a defect as though it establishes that Wilton knowingly concealed one.
Working the answers
- A
The principle doesn't require giving the seller a chance to make repairs. A seller could knowingly misrepresent a defective bicycle even if no one later offered an opportunity to fix it. The missing fact is knowledge at the sale, not a chance to repair afterward.
- B
The amount of money doesn't resolve whether Wilton knew the bicycle was defective. The principle applies to selling a known defective item while saying it is sound; it doesn't set a minimum price. A cheap sale could fit the rule just as an expensive one could.
- C
Defective means that something isn't functioning properly in both uses. Bad brakes are a defect of the bicycle. The argument isn't switching meanings; it's failing to establish the seller's awareness of the defect.
- D
Harris's belief isn't one of the principle's requirements. It concerns what the seller knows and says, not whether the buyer trusts the statement. Even a skeptical buyer could be told something the seller knows is false.
- ECorrect
This states the distinction behind our question. Wilton may have lacked a good basis for saying the bicycle worked, but that doesn't establish that he knew the statement was false. To use this particular principle to find fraud, we need the latter. E doesn't prove Wilton was honest or that he committed no wrongdoing; it shows why the facts provided don't establish fraud under the stated rule.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.