Q24 - A contract between two parties

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Example (Inference)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Contract valid → Accept legit offer
Reasonable belief it's a joke → Not legit offer

Answer Anticipation:
The Principles stated can be combined, but only after we accept an implicit premise: one cannot accept a legit offer if there isn't a legit offer. That's a fine implicit premise, though (it must be true based on the definitions), so our principle is:
Reasonable belief it's a joke → Contract not valid

I'm using this instead of the contrapositive because "contract not valid" is a judgment that I'm expecting the answer choices to make. The contrapositive in this case could be used for a correct answer, but think about what that would sound like and why it's unlikely to be an answer!

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Acceptance is a requirement (though not a sufficient statement) to a valid contract. A lack of rejection isn't the same. There isn't a principle that allows the conclusion that there is a valid contract; just that there isn't.

(B) The principle cares about the person who is receiving the offer reasonably thinking it's in jest. In this case, that would be Kenta, not Gus.

(C) Neither principle establishes criteria for who will accept an offer.

(D) The principle speaking to a valid contract states something necessary for a valid contract, not sufficient. As such, there's nothing sufficient to guarantee a contract is valid.

(E) Bingo, but easy to eliminate! They try to throw you off the scent by disregarding the intent and only using a single principle. However, the first principle states that if there isn't acceptance of a legit offer, then a contract isn't valid. In order to accept a legitimate offer, though, there has to be a legitimate offer. Since this offer is the only one Sal made, and it wasn't legit, then Veronica can't accept a legitimate offer, so there can't be a valid contract.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Watch out for implicit premises! Some are valid (though many aren't). These implicit premises rely on the definitions of the terms involved, and necessary logic connecting those ideas.

#officialexplanation

[seychelles1718]

Question Type:
Principle Example (Inference)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Contract valid → Accept legit offer
Reasonable belief it's a joke → Not legit offer

Answer Anticipation:
The Principles stated can be combined, but only after we accept an implicit premise: one cannot accept a legit offer if there isn't a legit offer.

#officialexplanation

Thanks for your great explanation!

But isn't your implicit premise actually a reverse of what it should be?
We have " Believe the offer to be joke --> NOT legit offer --> NOT accept a legit offer --> NOT valid" as the combined principles.
So I think your premise (NOT accept a legit offer --> NOT a legit offer) is a reverse.

Can someone please confirm this? Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

If you were diagramming his claim ...
"one cannot accept a legit offer if there isn't a legit offer."
.... what conditional keyword do you see?


I see "if"
one cannot accept a legit offer if there isn't a legit offer.

"If" = left side idea, so this would be diagrammed

IF no legit offer, THEN cannot accept a legit offer.

[JoyS894]

I am still struggling with eliminating B). The stimulus says that someone in position of the party to whom it was made (Kenta) would believe it was made in jest --> not legit. Is the reason why this is wrong because K did not reasonably believe the offer was made in jest? Or would it be the correct answer if it instead said, "Kenta had reason to believe the offer was made in jest?"

[aaronwfrank]

I am still struggling with eliminating B). The stimulus says that someone in position of the party to whom it was made (Kenta) would believe it was made in jest --> not legit. Is the reason why this is wrong because K did not reasonably believe the offer was made in jest? Or would it be the correct answer if it instead said, "Kenta had reason to believe the offer was made in jest?"

This one gave me trouble as well. I'm still sort out my understanding on this one, but I think I'm getting close.

So, first off, Kenta accepted the offer. Was it legitimate? Well, it appears that since she accepted it, Kenta does not reasonably believe the offer was made in jest. Thus, you're only failing the sufficient condition, and in that case (mistaken negation), we do not know whether or not the offer was legitimate.

I think the complication results partly from syntax, but the main issue I see here is that Kenta did not believe the offer was made in jest. We only know that Gus made it in jest. Hope that makes sense.