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
- 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?