hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Tariq: The referee was right to call off the match. The pitch had become genuinely dangerous, and player safety must always take precedence over finishing a game. Wells: The conditions were dangerous, I grant that. But calling off the match was the wrong decision: the players themselves wanted to keep going, and the risk was theirs to accept.
Tariq and Wells disagree over whether
- whether the dangerous pitch could have been repaired quickly enough for the match to resume later
- The referee's decision to call off the match was correct
- The players wanted the match to continue
- The playing conditions had become dangerous
- Player safety should always outweigh finishing a game
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- 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?
- 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
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?