PrepTest 148, Section 4, Question 24
A contract between two parties is valid only(38 more words not shown)
The principle stated above, if(14 more words not shown)
- AJoe made a(19 more words not shown)
- BKenta accepted Gus's(23 more words not shown)
- CFrank's offer to(19 more words not shown)
- DHai's offer to(37 more words not shown)
- EThe only offer(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A serious offer isn't automatically a valid contract. The first rule gives a requirement: one party must accept a legitimate offer from the other. Even meeting that requirement might leave other requirements unmet.
The second rule tells us one way an offer fails. If someone in the recipient's position would reasonably think it was a joke, it isn't legitimate. Keep the two objects straight: the offer can be legitimate or illegitimate; the resulting contract can be valid or invalid.
What we’re looking for
We need an argument justified by those rules. We can rule out a valid contract when a required legitimate offer is missing. We can't automatically declare a contract valid merely because we've cleared one obstacle.
Working the answers
- A
Not rejecting an offer isn't the same as accepting it. Sandy could be undecided or simply not have responded. So A hasn't even established the acceptance that a valid contract requires. And the rule supplies a requirement, not a promise that any accepted legitimate offer meets every condition for a valid contract.
- B
Gus's private intention isn't the test we're given. The rule asks whether someone in Kenta's position would reasonably believe the offer was a joke. Gus could secretly be joking while presenting an offer that reasonably appears serious. We would need the relevant reasonable perception, not just the offer-maker's undisclosed intent, to use this rule to invalidate the offer.
- C
A legitimate offer needn't be one Mindy wants to accept. She might have good reasons to keep her business or dislike the price. Nothing in the principle predicts that reasonable people accept every legitimate offer; it describes requirements for a valid contract.
- D
This avoids one reason an offer would be illegitimate, but it doesn't establish that no other reason could make it illegitimate. Even if we granted legitimacy and Lea's acceptance, those are required conditions for a valid contract, not an assurance of validity. D turns the absence of one obstacle into a guarantee the principle never gives.
- ECorrect
The only offer Sal made was not legitimate, so the required legitimate offer is missing. Whether Sal was joking doesn't change that failure. Joking isn't the only possible reason an offer could be illegitimate; once we're told it was illegitimate, the first rule is enough to reject the claimed valid contract.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.