PrepTest 157, Section 3, Question 4
Principle: It is unethical for someone who has(43 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- ABefore returning the(15 more words not shown)
- BJames bought the(23 more words not shown)
- CJames used the(22 more words not shown)
- DJames returned the(19 more words not shown)
- EJames used the(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Did James get everything he wanted out of the camera? Two weeks of ownership doesn't answer that.
Suppose he bought it to record a wedding, recorded the whole event, and then returned it because that was the only use he wanted. That would fit the principle. But suppose he hoped to use it for years and returned it because the picture quality disappointed him. Same purchase, same return, very different relationship to his intended use.
What we’re looking for
The rule doesn't condemn every return after an item has been used. It condemns returning an item after getting all the use the buyer ever intended to get. To justify the application, we need evidence that James completed his intended purpose before returning the camera. We don't need to invent an additional rule about how long he owned it or whether he planned the return in advance.
Working the answers
- A
Extensive use is still not necessarily all the intended use. James could have filmed his family many times and planned to keep doing so for years. This establishes that he used the camera, but it leaves the rule's crucial requirement unanswered.
- BCorrect
James bought the camera for a particular event: his sister's graduation party. By using his own camera, he could avoid hiring a videographer for that party. Returning it immediately afterward strongly suggests he obtained the event recording he bought it to obtain and then took it back. Of these choices, this most directly connects the return with completing his intended use.
- C
Dropping the camera and discovering broken features raises a different issue. Perhaps returning an item one has damaged would be objectionable under some other rule. The supplied principle concerns getting all the intended use. If James wanted a functioning camera for future events, the damage might have prevented him from getting that use.
- D
Finding a lower price explains a return without showing that James finished using a camera. He might plan to buy the cheaper one and continue filming. Whatever we think about that shopping decision, it doesn't establish the condition in this principle.
- E
Using the camera in the intended manner isn't the same as getting all the use he intended. He could use it to make exactly the sort of videos he wanted and still want to make many more. Wanting a camera that works better with his computer points to a reason to exchange it, not to a completed purpose.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.