Q8 - Jones is selling a house to Smith

[weiyichen1986]

Hi, i know this is easy question, as i was reviewing it, i find D is also true, can anyone explain why is it false? is it because smith will just not be obliged to repair all structural defects?

thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

Clarified post below.

[felix-3]

But D says that "except those for which Jones is response". I think this still falls within the criteria. However, I think that it is wrong because we don't know if Smith is "obliged" to repair all the structural defects. Maybe he has a contract with someone else that makes them obliged, or he just doesn't want to repair it.

Is that reasonable? Or am I still overlooking something with the language between within and up to a year.

[timmydoeslsat]

I did not make a good response in the comment above. Let me do better on this one.

This is a must be true question. Here are the facts that we are expected to push out an inference.

Jones sells to Smith. After ownership is transferred, Jones will be responsible for "major structural defects." for up to a year. They define major struct. defects as defects in the roof or components supporting the roof. Jones will not be responsible for anything else.

It is a truss roof which means that the only walls that support it are exterior walls.

So we know that for Jones to be responsible within the year, there must either be a defect in the roof itself or the exterior walls. Non-exterior walls are not supporting the roof, so there is no way that this will be classified as a major struct. defect.

As for answer choice D, this is wrong for the huge reason of us not knowing what kind of responsibility Smith has. Perhaps those non-exterior walls will have its responsibility vested in the builders.

[michaelwcarper]

I did not make a good response in the comment above. Let me do better on this one.

This is a must be true question. Here are the facts that we are expected to push out an inference.

Jones sells to Smith. After ownership is transferred, Jones will be responsible for "major structural defects." for up to a year. They define major struct. defects as defects in the roof or components supporting the roof. Jones will not be responsible for anything else.

It is a truss roof which means that the only walls that support it are exterior walls.

So we know that for Jones to be responsible within the year, there must either be a defect in the roof itself or the exterior walls. Non-exterior walls are not supporting the roof, so there is no way that this will be classified as a major struct. defect.

As for answer choice D, this is wrong for the huge reason of us not knowing what kind of responsibility Smith has. Perhaps those non-exterior walls will have its responsibility vested in the builders.

So this is an inference question, not an identify the conclusion question, despite the phrasing of "it can be properly concluded that?"

[tommywallach]

Yeah. If they ask "Which of the following IS the conclusion," that means that you would simply state whatever conclusion was said already.

But if they're asking what you COULD conclude, that's just an inference question.

-t

[roflcoptersoisoi]

We're told that the contract between Jones and Smith stipulates that Jones is responsible for fixing any major structural defects within 12 months of when the ownership is transferred. These defects are defined as defects in the roof of its supporting structures and nothing else. We're also told that the exterior walls are the roof's only supporting structures. So we can infer that Jones is only responsible for fixing any defects in the roof and the exterior walls.

(A) We don't know if he didn't know of the defects in question, eliminate
(B) Again, we have no idea whether or not the roof or its supporting components are free of defects
(C) Bingo. According to the contract Jones is responsible for repairing the roof or it's exterior walls, consequently it must be true that he is not responsible for repairing non exterior walls.
(D) No. This answer choice requires the assumption that Smith is responsible for repairing any defects for which Jones is not but we have no idea if this is true. Perhaps the contract also states that another third party is responsible for the other defects. Eliminate
(E) We have no clue.. eliminate.

(C) is the right answer, nothing else comes close.

[PepitoH243]

If he knew that the roof and the roof-supporting components of the house were in good condition then why he made a contract saying that he will be responsible for any damage found? Wouldn't be better writing a contract saying that the house that he is selling has a roof free of any structural damage?