QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Wilton committed fraud.
REASONING: Wilton didn’t know whether the bicycle was good, but he said it was. If you know something is not good and say it is good, then you commit fraud.
ANALYSIS: Wilton was just reckless. For all he knew, the bicycle might have been good; he just got unlucky. It would only have been fraud if Wilton was sure the bicycle wasn’t good.
- Why would Wilton have tried to fix the brakes if he got the chance? He didn’t know there was anything wrong with them.
- Fraud is a flexible word. Fraud can be worth $1 or $1,000,000,000.
- Defective is clear both times. It means: not working.
- You can commit fraud even if the other person doesn’t believe you. The principle doesn’t say anything about the buyer’s belief.
- CORRECT. Lying means saying something you definitely know is false. Wilton just took a risk. As far as he knew, the bike could have been fine.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly