PrepTest 135, Section 1, Question 14
Principle: If an insurance policy is written in(70 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- ACelia is a(15 more words not shown)
- BGiven the way(27 more words not shown)
- CThe insurance policy(31 more words not shown)
- DCelia did not(24 more words not shown)
- ECelia did not(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A policy could be so long or difficult to read that even a reasonable person wouldn't read all of it before signing. The principle tells us what should govern coverage in that situation: the policyholder's reasonable expectations take priority over the policy's specific wording.
Celia expected hail coverage—or at least that's what we would need to establish. Was that expectation reasonable? Simply wanting coverage wouldn't be enough. If the rule is going to require the insurer to pay despite the written exclusion, the expectation itself needs to qualify.
What we’re looking for
But don't stop there. The rule only activates for a policy written in a way that a reasonable person would not read thoroughly before signing. We need that fact too. The answer should establish both the kind of policy covered by the principle and the reasonable expectation of hail coverage.
Working the answers
- A
Saying Celia is a reasonable person doesn't automatically make every expectation she has reasonable. More decisively, A says nothing about whether a reasonable person would read this policy thoroughly. Without that condition, the principle doesn't tell us to set aside the written exclusion.
- BCorrect
This supplies both pieces. Given the policy's wording, a reasonable person wouldn't read it thoroughly before signing; that brings the policy within the rule. Celia also reasonably expected hail coverage; that establishes which coverage expectation should take priority. The principle now supports requiring payment despite the written exclusion.
- C
The policy meets the rule's initial condition, but we still don't know that Celia reasonably expected hail coverage. Her actually reading the policy doesn't supply that missing expectation. We also shouldn't invent a new rule saying that anyone who reads the policy automatically loses the protection; that isn't what the stated principle says.
- D
Celia's not reading the policy isn't the same as a reasonable person's not reading it because of the way it is written. Maybe Celia skipped a perfectly clear, short policy. D supports a reasonable expectation of hail coverage, but it leaves the rule's initial condition unestablished.
- E
This addresses whether a reasonable person would read the policy. It doesn't establish any reasonable expectation about hail damage. Even if we grant the first part of the rule, we still need to know what coverage Celia reasonably expected before we can require the insurer to provide it.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.