LSAT 129 – Section 1 – Question 01

LSAT 129 - Section 1 - Question 01

June 2009

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:04

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT129 S1 Q01
+LR
+Exp
Most strongly supported +MSS
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
1%
157
B
96%
163
C
1%
154
D
1%
150
E
1%
153
120
130
140
 +Easiest 146.023 +SubsectionMedium

Extract from lease: The tenant should record all preexisting damage on the preexisting damage list, because the tenant need not pay for preexisting damage recorded there. The tenant must pay for damage that was not recorded on the preexisting damage list, except for any damage caused by a circumstance beyond the tenant’s control.

Summary

A tenant does not have to pay for preexisting damage if the damage was recorded on the preexisting damage list. A tenant must pay for damage not on this list except in cases where the damage was caused by circumstances beyond the tenant’s control.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

If an event beyond a tenant’s control caused damage, the tenant will not have to pay for that damage.

A
a hole in the wall that was not recorded on the preexisting damage list and that was the result of an event within the tenant’s control

This answer is unsupported. In order to not be required to pay for damage, a tenant must meet at least one condition: (1) the damage was recorded on the preexisting damage list, or (2) the damage was caused by an event outside of the tenant’s control.

B
a crack in a window caused by a factor beyond the tenant’s control and not recorded on the preexisting damage list

This answer is strongly supported. This answer satisfies one condition for the tenant not to be required to pay for the damage.

C
a tear in the linoleum that was not preexisting but that was caused by one of the tenant’s children

This answer is unsupported. It is reasonable that the tenant would have control over what damage their children cause, and therefore it does not meet a condition required for the tenant not to be required to pay.

D
a missing light fixture that was present when the tenant moved in but was later removed by the tenant

This answer is unsupported. It is unclear from the stimulus whether a missing light fixture could be considered “damage.”

E
paint splatters on the carpet that should have been recorded on the preexisting damage list but were not

This answer is unsupported. It is unclear in this answer whether the paint splatters occurred within or beyond the tenant’s control. Without knowing, we cannot reasonably say the tenant would not be required to pay for the damage.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 129 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply