easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A gym owner decided to implement a rule requiring all members to complete a safety orientation before using the heavy weight equipment. Although some members complained that the rule is inconvenient, the owner argued that the reduction in potential injury risks justifies the extra time members must spend.
The gym owner's reasoning conforms most closely to which one of the following principles?
- Lowering the risk of harm to participants can justify imposing some inconvenience on them.
- The convenience of those it serves should be a public-facing business's leading concern.
- A safety orientation is the only effective means of preventing injuries in a gymnasium.
- Members who object to a safety measure should have their memberships terminated.
- Any measure that reduces injury risk must be adopted no matter how burdensome it proves.
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