medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A passage explains that pin money, an allowance for a wife's personal items, was compromised by restrictive rules: any pin money spent on something other than clothing effectively became the husband's property. The passage also notes that separate maintenance was another newly emerging legal concept.
Which one of the following can be properly inferred from this description?
- A wife who used pin money to buy food would see that money treated, in law, as belonging to her husband.
- Pin money was the sole element of marriage contracts that afforded wives any financial autonomy.
- A wife who confined her pin-money spending to clothing was thereby assured complete financial independence from her husband.
- Husbands in the period were legally obligated to furnish their wives an allowance earmarked for clothing.
- Wives in the period were forbidden from purchasing food without their husband's prior consent.
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