1. This LSAT question should be treated as an apply principle. Apply the rules to the choices to determine which situation the tenant would not have to pay for.

(A) states that the damage was within (not beyond) the tenant's control and thus the tenant would need to pay.

(B) is the correct choice. Although the crack was not recorded, it was beyond the tenant's control, and thus the tenant would not need to pay.

For (C), we do not know whether the tenant would need to pay or not. We know that the damage was not preexisting, but it may have appeared on the preexisting damage list anyhow. Also, we don't know whether or not the tenant's children's (other person's) actions are beyond the control of the tenant.

For (D), the tenant would need to pay -- although we do not know whether the damage was on the list, the damage was within the tenant's control.

For (E), the tenant would need to pay -- see the first half of the second sentence of the passage.

 

2. Treat this similar to an LSAT weaken question. Both claims are about what caused Z (mayor's action). Randy claims that X (concern for maintaining diverse news programs) caused Z. Marion claims that Y (reward political supporter) caused Z. How to weaken Marion? Providing another possible cause often does the trick with causal claims, but doing so would weaken both Randy's and Marion's. So, find a choice that weakens Marion's yet maintains Randy's. (B) does this by showing that the mayor used her influence equally in similar situations -- once for a supporter, once for an opponent's supporter. As such, Marion's claim of the mayor's "rewarding" a supporter is weakened, because if the mayor's actions were indeed a reward, then why would she provide an equal reward for someone who supported her opponent?

(A) might exonerate the owner, but not the mayor. The owner's intentions for benefiting from the influence are irrelevant because the argument is focused only on the mayor's intentions for providing her influence.

(C) Just because Azco has never been judged to be biased does not necessarily mean that it is in actuality unbiased. Even so, if Azco's news is, in fact, biased towards the mayor's actions, then that would weaken both authors by providing an alternate reason to both claims -- the mayor wanted to keep a supporting news service, not maintain a diversity of programs or reward the owner for his support. If Azco News is unbiased, then this does not weaken Marion's claim because the service could be unbiased and she could still use her influence to reward the owner.

(D) weakens both arguments by providing an alternate cause to both -- the mayor wanted to tap the potential political support, not maintain a diversity of programs or reward the owner for his support.

For (E), how many people watch Mega Cable's programming is irrelevant. The argument is focused on Azco, and why the author used her influence.

 

3. Compare "chose" in the second sentence with "average" in the conclusion. The author assumes that the fish that were caught by the anglers and then chosen by those same anglers for the biologists to weigh represent all trout at the beginning of the season in the Macawber River. It's unlikely that the sample would be representative, and (A) is the correct choice.

(B) states "anecdotal", which means based on individual stories. The evidence is not anecdotal -- the scientists weighed the fish.

For (C), note that the conclusion is limited to the season's beginning. Thus, the whole season is irrelevant.

For (D), the conclusion is limited to "this season", and thus other seasons are irrelevant.

For (E), the conclusion is limited to trout, and thus other species of fish are irrelevant.