QUESTION TYPE: Principle
PRINCIPLE: No reasonable person would read the policy ➞ Uphold a reasonable person’s understanding of the policy
APPLICATION: The insurance company should cover hail damage, even though the policy barred hail damage.
ANALYSIS: We must show that the sufficient condition of the principle applied. So it has to be true that a reasonable person wouldn’t have read the policy.
We also should show that it was reasonable to expect the policy to cover hail.
Since this is a ‘most justifies’ question, the answer doesn’t need to cover both factors. The correct answer does get them both, however.
- This doesn’t show whether the policy was written in a way that would prevent an ordinary person from reading it.
- CORRECT. This shows the sufficient condition applies: a reasonable person would not have read the policy. And Celia reasonably expected it to cover hail. This meets both conditions in the principle.
- It’s not clear if it matters that Celia read the policy. The sufficient condition was that ‘a reasonable person wouldn’t have read thoroughly’. This answer doesn’t address that point.
- It’s possible to make an unreasonable decision, and then make a reasonable decision.
For instance, perhaps it was unreasonable not to read the policy thoroughly. Then, to get into Celia’s position, you would have to take an unreasonable decision. You could reasonably assume the policy covered hail, but only because you took the unreasonable decision not to read the policy.
- This doesn’t say whether Celia was reasonable to expect the policy would cover hail.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly