medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A person should be held legally liable for the damages caused by their pet only if the pet owner was aware of the pet's aggressive tendencies prior to the incident and failed to take reasonable precautions to restrain the animal. Sarah's dog, which had never bitten anyone or shown aggression before, escaped from a professionally installed fence and bit a passerby.
If the principle stated above is valid, which of the following must be true based on the scenario?
- Sarah may not be held legally responsible for the harm her dog inflicted on the passerby.
- Because she did not manage to keep the dog confined, Sarah's failure to restrain the animal makes her liable.
- Had Sarah been aware that her dog was dangerous, she would certainly be held liable for the bite.
- The professional installation of the fence is enough on its own to shield Sarah from any liability.
- Sarah should compensate the passerby for the medical costs arising from the bite.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ