medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The city may lawfully close a street only for public safety or a permitted festival. Oak Street was lawfully closed, and no festival permit existed. Therefore the closure was justified by an immediate hazard.
Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?
- Every public-safety closure under this ordinance responds to an immediate hazard.
- Permit applications are public records.
- Oak Street hosts several festivals each year.
- Public-safety closures usually last less than one day, with the streets reopened as soon as ordinary traffic management becomes possible.
- A hazard can be immediate even if no accident occurs.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement…
- 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 reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
- No one who is tired can concentrate. Peter is not tired… Which of the following correctly…
All Logical Reasoning questions · LSAT study guide · LSAT glossary · LSAT flashcards