A person is responsible for harm only if the harm was foreseeable.
Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. A driver is not responsible for a crash caused by a sudden, unknown brake defect
- Step 1: The principle links responsibility to foreseeability. Step 2. An unknown defect was not foreseeable, so no responsibility. Answer: the driver is not responsible. Why not the others: these harms were foreseeable.
Practise more Inference, Flaws and Principles.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LSAT (Law School Admission Test) mock tests.
More Inference, Flaws and Principles questions
- All of the firm's accountants hold a CPA license. Some of the firm's employees are not accountants. Every employee who holds a CPA license r…
- Most of the city's restaurants that serve breakfast also serve lunch. No restaurant that serves lunch closes before 2 PM.
Which one of the… - Every time Marta wears her lucky scarf, her team wins. Marta concludes that wearing the scarf helps her team win.
The reasoning is flawed b… - No one has proven that the old well is safe to drink from. Therefore the old well must be unsafe.
The reasoning is flawed because it - A senator argues that her opponent's tax plan should be rejected, because her opponent was once fined for a parking violation.
The senator'… - Most lawyers at the firm are over forty. Smith is a lawyer at the firm. Therefore Smith is over forty.
The reasoning is flawed because it