#17 - Real estate agent: Upon selling a home, the sellers

[maximbasu]

Hello,
I chose D as the correct answer while the correct answer was A.

I understand that A makes sense. I don't understand why D does not. To me, it is an equally viable answer. The stimulus suggests that home sellers shouldn't deliberately mislead buyers--that's exactly what D states.


Thank you, Maxim.

[Eric Ockert]

Maxim

Be careful with the language in answer choice (D). Just because many prospective buyers are likely to assume that these appliances would be included with the the purchase, that doesn't mean the seller would or should necessarily know that the buyers hold that assumption. In other words, it is possible that a seller leaves a dishwasher installed while showing the home, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the buyer knows the seller plans to take the dishwasher with them once the house is sold. The seller is not "deliberately misleading" the buyer, even though the buyer assumed something incorrectly.

So, since we don't know whether or not the sellers in the stimulus are "deliberately misleading" the buyers, the principle/rule in answer choice (D) doesn't necessarily apply to these facts, and therefore would not strengthen the argument.

With answer choice (A) we DO know that prospective buyer "might assume" these items would be included, so the answer DOES support the claim of a moral obligation.

On a more general note, many of these principles will focus on the mental state of the actors involved. This is very similar to criminal law's obsession with intent. You have to keep track not just of the results of an action (the buyers believing something incorrectly) but also the actor's intent (what the seller was trying to do). So here, just because the buyer was mistaken, doesn't mean the seller was trying to deliberately mislead.

[siennahwoo]

Why is E wrong?
E says "If a home's sellers have indicated in some way that a large appliance is included with the purchase.."

Is this wrong because the stimulus never discussed the home sellers "indicating" a large appliance is included or not?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Siennahwoo,

Yes, you are correct. The stimulus does not stipulate that the sellers have "indicated" that these large appliances are included in the sale. It is the buyers' assumption that is in question. In effect, we need to outline a principle/rule to the effect of:

• "If sellers might have certain assumptions/misconceptions, it is the responsibility of the seller to address these assumptions/misconceptions."

Good analysis. Please follow up with further questions.

[HopefulJD]

Hi! In regards to this question, I chose D over A because A was missing the "remove them before showing the home" portion. I did not like that D had "deliberately misleading" in it, but I was able to reconcile that more than I could leaving out what seemed to be a crucial part of the stimulus. So answer choice A is enough to justify the whole stimulus, even though it's missing one of the conditions that it presented?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

That's correct, Hopeful, and for two reasons. First, if we look at the conclusion as an either/or statement (either remove them or indicate in some other way), then a statement that one of those options is absolutely required is enough to justify that claim. "You must do one of these two things" is true if in fact you must do one of them.

Second, we can also analyze that conclusion not as an either/or statement, but as a broad statement of requirement that includes a specific example of a way to meet that requirement. The author isn't saying EITHER remove them OR indicate that they aren't included, but rather that you must indicate that they are not included in some way, SUCH AS removing them. Removing them is just one of many possible ways of indicating that they don't come with the house.

One final note, and that's about the difference between knowing an answer is incorrect (answer D's inclusion of "deliberately misleading" kills it) and not liking an answer because it seems incomplete or insufficient in some way. If you know that D was wrong, but are just unsure of answer A (not saying that was the case for you here, but if you do ever find yourself in that position), pick the answer you're unsure about. A confusing or otherwise imperfect answer is still better than a wrong one, and our task is to select the best answer from among those provided.

[HopefulJD]

Thank you for the reply, very helpful!

[lsacgals101]

Hi,
I am wondering if you could help me understand why B is incorrect, understand the structure of the last sentence, and whether you would advise prephrasing this question (and this TYPE of question/strengthen PR questions in general)? If so, what would a good prephrase look like?

Regarding the structure of the last sentence (which I believe led me to choose B): I interpreted it as follows:
(X=many buyers are likely to assume... Y = sellers who will be keeping appliances... z= Remove or Indicate in some other way)

Since X, those who Y are morally obligated to Z.
This led me to see X as a factual statement (rather than a SC)... and to consider "those who Y" to be the sufficient condition, and "morally obligated to Z" to be the necessary condition. Answer B seemed to address the SC/NC more directly / closely ... whereas answer A attached an "if" to what I considered to be a factual statement.

Could you help me with this??? I would so appreciate your guidance ...

(PS my second post about this question (see below) was written before i edited/added to this post)

[lsacgals101]

Also,
Is there any notable difference between "if" vs. "since"? I liked answer A when i initially read it but noticed that it began with "if"--implying conditionality-- while the stimulus uses "since" (many prospective buyers)--which is more factual.

How should I think about these indicators and their potential differences?

[James Finch]

Hi LSAC Gals,

I'm going to answer your questions in reverse order:

"If" is a sufficient condition indicator, unless it is paired with "only" as "only if," in which case the "only" makes it a necessary condition indicator. Biconditional relationships (the conditions being both sufficient and necessary for each other) will almost always be indicated by "if and only if," as that contains both the sufficient and necessary indicators.

"Since" is a premise indicator that also implies a causal relationship, basically synonymous with "because." The causal relationship may or may be pertinent to answering the question, but the premise indication is very helpful in identifying a conclusion that will either immediately follow or immediately precede the clause attached to the "since." Just remember that this might be an intermediate, not main, conclusion!

As to this particular question, all Strengthen/Justify/Assumption questions contain some form of logical gap flaw. In order to Prephrase them correctly, you first need to identify that gap and what needs to fill it. In this stimulus, the conclusion jumps to an assumed moral obligation that isn't mentioned anywhere in the premises, whose emphasis on legality is a hint that we're dealing with two separate things: moral obligations versus legal ones. So the gap in the stimulus's logic is that they're assuming that owners have a moral obligation to make buyers aware of the owners' legal obligations, at least in cases where the buyers are likely to make certain assumptions about what is included in the sale. My Prephrase was essentially "Whenever buyers are likely to assume something will be included in a sale, the owners are morally obligated to let them know what will be included in actual fact."

Answer choice (A) lines up perfectly with this Prephrase, making it correct. (B) does a subtle bait-and-switch, where it makes sellers morally obligated to not allow buyers to make any assumptions in the first place; however, the stimulus is trying to make buyers morally obligated to correct the assumptions, not ensure that they aren't ever made. So (B) is basically acting as a premise for an entirely different argument than the one being made in the stimulus.

Hope this clears things up!