LSAT 36, Logical Reasoning II, Q5, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Solicitor: Loux named Zembaty executor of her…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken 

CONCLUSION: It’s unlikely that Loux would have objected to Zembaty selling the farm rather than giving it to Loux’s grandson.

REASONING: Loux never said what should be done with the farm and she didn’t seem interested in it.

ANALYSIS: We need a reason why Loux might have objected to the sale, even though she didn’t care about the farm.

The correct answer shows that Loux’s grandson might have liked the farm even if Loux didn’t care for it. Loux might therefore have objected to the sale on her grandson’s behalf. She liked her grandson.

___________

1. This strengthens the argument for selling the farm. It was required.
2. This sounds good, but it doesn’t mean that the grandson had to have the farm. Loux could have just left him a lot of money instead.
3. This strengthens the argument that Loux would not have objected to a sale.
4. This has nothing to do with whether or not the farm ought to have been sold. It’s irrelevant, and can’t weaken the argument. The cause of a debt doesn’t have to be the solution.
5. CORRECT. This supports the idea that Loux would have wanted other properties sold instead so that Loux’s grandson could have the farm. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---