Q17 - Real estate agent: Upon selling

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

You're right that this is a Principle Support question. That means the correct answer should pretty explicitly link the premise and the conclusion. In this case the core looks like this:

P: many prospective buyers assume large appliances will be included --> C: sellers who are keeping these appliances are morally obligated to remove them before showing the home or let buyers know they're not included

So we know the right answer needs to link these two ideas; it needs to tell us that if you have this premise, you should arrive at this conclusion.

That's why (A) is a winner. It gives us our premise -- buyers might assume that large appliances are included -- and then gets us to part of our conclusion, namely, that sellers are morally obligated to indicate that the items aren't included.

(B) is incorrect because the argument has nothing to do with whether people mistakenly believe large appliances to be permanent fixtures. The issue is whether the appliances will be included in the purchase, not whether they are built-in pieces of the house.

(C) is incorrect because the argument never says homeowners are obliged to include anything; it says they are obliged to let buyers know about the things they won't include.

(D) is incorrect for the reason you suggested: the argument never suggests that homeowners are intentionally misleading anybody.

(E) is tempting, but according to the argument, they can remove the item, they just need to let the buyers know this.

Does that answer your question?


#officialexplanation

[tamwaiman]

I recognize this is a support-principle question. But I cannot eliminate (B) and (D), is it because in (B) "any" large appliances is too general and in (D) the "deliberately misleading" is too specific?
Thank you.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello Gilad,
I had a quick question regarding (A). The only reason I didn't pick it was because the stimulus states that the sellers are morally obliged "either to remove them before showing the home OR to indicate in some other way that the appliances are not included" and the answer choice says that the sellers MUST indicate that the applians are not included and doesn't mention about the other option "to remove them before showing the home" -- I thought this wasn't valid since the sellers aren't morally obliged to take the latter option because they can still take the first one -- (A) sounded like they HAD to take the LATTER option and not the former, does this make sense?

[giladedelman]

Yes, that absolutely makes sense, but let me ask you this: which one did you pick instead? Now look at that answer. Is it better than (A)?

That's the only question that really matters. (A) isn't perfect, but we're just looking for the principle that most justifies the argument, and (A) wins that contest in a landslide.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

[LSAT-Chang]

You are definitely right, I picked (B) but I totally misread it. The stimulus only tells us that people are morally obliged to do one of the two followings: 1) remove the appliances before showing the home; OR 2) indicate in some other way that the appliances are not included. Nowhere in the stimulus does it say that a seller is morally obliged TO "ensure that prospective buyers of the home do not assume that any large appliances are permanent fixtures in the home." I agree in that what matters, is that answer choice (A) is the best among all the others and is therefore the "best" answer.

[zainrizvi]

I was still struggling with (B), but I think I found another reason why its wrong.

The conclusion is limited to people who will be KEEPING some appliances. (B) doesn't have this limitation. So if you chose (B), you'd have to tell them they aren't permanent fixtures - even if you planned to give them away.

It's too encompassing and doesn't fit in with the reasoning of the stimulus.

Is my reasoning valid? I ask because I realize justify questions usually are very general, but I think justify principle questions are a bit special in that regard. They have to work with the argument as well.


----


Edit: I'm still not really seeing why the other reasons mentioned invalidate (B). I feel like if home sellers are obliged to ensure that the buyers don't assume the large appliances are permanent fixture, then it does justify the reasoning.

[noah]

The conclusion is limited to people who will be KEEPING some appliances. (B) doesn't have this limitation. So if you chose (B), you'd have to tell them they aren't permanent fixtures - even if you planned to give them away.

It's too encompassing and doesn't fit in with the reasoning of the stimulus.

I agree - it's far too broad. We don't need to have prospective buyers assume that any large appliances are not permanent fixtures - it's specifically the ones that the sellers will be taking.

Edit: I'm still not really seeing why the other reasons mentioned invalidate (B). I feel like if home sellers are obliged to ensure that the buyers don't assume the large appliances are permanent fixture, then it does justify the reasoning.

I think I see what you're saying. However, what does being not "permanent" have to do with being part of the sale? Those ideas are not interchangeable. The lawn is not permanent, but it's often considered part of the sale...

[T.J.]

There is actually more substance and subtlety to (D) than you guys have given it credit for.

First, "deliberately mislead" does not go well with what we have in the stimulus where it basically means the sellers of real estate should go the extra mile so that the buyers would not be mistaken for what will not be included in the house after sale. This is being really kind and considerate, which is significantly different from "deliberately misleading".

Second, "which belongings are included...and which are not" is fishy too. It means that the seller should not let the buyer believe something will be included when actually it is not, also that the seller ought not to let the buyer believe something will not be included when actually it is. Again, this does not resonate with the stimulus.

And you are welcome.

[noah]

And you are welcome.

[Mab6q]

I might add that A does meet both conditions established in the stimulus. The seller can either remove it or indicate that is it not included. In A, indicating that those are not included would include removing the items in the first place so there would be no issue. For me, I think it works to interpret it like like that.

[gaheexlee]

I had eliminated A and picked E instead because I thought A's "any" made the answer scope too broad since the stimulus talked only of large appliances.

But is this condoned because this is a principle sufficient assumption-y type of a question where broad language is more acceptable than say in a necessary assumption question?

[kyuya]

Okay so this is a pretty tough principle question. Was stuck between (A) and (B) and ultimately chose (B) for a few reasons that I will elaborate upon shortly.

Okay, so what's going on in the stimulus?

- Essentially, when selling a home, big items like dishwashers are often assumed to be a part of the house
- in recognition of this common assumption, the person selling the house is morally obliged to (1) remove them before showing the home, (2) indicate in some other way that appliances are not included

So we are looking for a principle that covers this. I'll go from wrong to right.

(B) An attractive answer choice, but it is wrong. If we read it really carefully, it is wrong in a subtle way that I personally missed on my first attempt of this section.

It states that the seller is obliged to ensure that prospective buyers of the home do not assume that any large appliances are permanent fixtures in the home.

However, this is not actually what the seller is obliged to do. If we recall, the seller is obliged to do only a few things: (1) remove the item, (2) indicate that the appliance is not included. It never states they are obligated to make sure the person doesn't ASSUME the appliance is a permanent fixture. Rather, (B) is dealing with the presumed CONSEQUENCE of the two moral obligations. The consequence being that the person doesn't assume the appliances are fixtures in the home. However, once again, this in it self is not the moral obligation. The moral obligation is what the stimulus states it is.

Another reason I picked (B) is simply because I wanted (A) to be too perfect as well, a lesson I learned from this question. However, I'll get into that more when I discuss (A).

(C) This is simply wrong, the best way to get rid of this is to refer back to what is obliged in the stimulus and you'll see how wrong this really is.

(D) This sounds right.. but for a similar reason to why I believe (B) is wrong, (D) is wrong. Refer back to the stimulus to see what the sellers are obliged to do in reality. Just like (B), this is referring to a presumed consequence of the moral obligations, but NOT the moral obligations themselves! The moral obligations are aimed at making sure people are not mislead about what is included in the house, but this does not mean this itself is the moral obligation. This is the end, not the means (being the 2 moral obligations).

(E) Again, refer back to what is obliged. This is wrong because it simply is not an obligation. This, along with (C) are some of the more blatantly wrong answer choices here.

Okay, so now for (A).

I had a bit of a problem with (A) because I wanted it to be perfect - but now I know it doesn't have to be.

(A) Really fits almost perfectly with the stimulus, aside from having the option of "remove them before showing" which is actually why I eliminated this. As pointed out in the above conversation though, do not let the pursuit of a perfect answer choice screw you over.

[andrewgong01]

For B though, since a principle justify can be like a SA or go extreme and way beyond what is needed for the conclusion to hold, couldn't "B" also do the same thing? I see how "A" matches closely the premise in the stimulus but at the same time "B" would allow the conclusion to be drawn too but just more extreme since under B's paradigm ALL large appliances would have to be disclosed (regardless of wether or not they will be kept) and hence the conclusion can still be drawn that sellers have an obligation to disclose the appliances they plan on removing from the house. In other words, "B" seems to allow the conclusion to be properly drawn even though it also enlarges the amount of disclosures we will have since now every large appliance will be pointed out (and hence no more assumptions from the buyer's side) which is consistent with the conclusion of the stimulus and what "A" hopes to justify, home buyers must make clear the large appliances that will be moved out.

[ohthatpatrick]

For Principle-Support questions, you should be looking for a law that takes you FROM the premise TO the conclusion.

(B) is a rule that says “Make sure the premise never happens”.
(A) is a rule that says “When stuff we described in the Premise is happening, stuff we said in the Conclusion applies.”

If I said, “Doug stole property worth more than $10,000. Thus, Doug committed grand larceny”, then our missing principle is something like “If you stole something worth more then $10k, then grand larceny” and (B) would be like “You should never steal something worth more than $10,000 …. (so there’s no need to even talk about grand larceny).”

I get that you're thinking, "If the buyers don't assume that anything comes with the house, then we really don't have to do anything else .... they won't be surprised if any large appliance is missing."

But the correct rule should actually FORCE someone to perform the morally obliged actions in the conclusion. Does (B) force us to remove or label which appliances we're taking with us?

No, you're saying it just renders those actions moot, since people didn't assume anything was staying for sure (note: even if you don't assume anything is staying, it could be nice for the buyer to have a specific idea in advance of what is / isn't staying).

Finally, (B) is talking about whether buyers assume an appliance is a "permanent fixture", while the argument was talking about buyers assuming an appliance "would be included with the purchase".

To make (B) work better, it would at least say we're obliged to keep buyers from assuming that large appliances "are included with the purchase".