medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Consider the statement: "If a restaurant fails its health inspection, then it must close for remediation."
Which one of the following is the contrapositive of the statement above?
- If a restaurant does not close for remediation, then it did not fail its health inspection.
- If a restaurant closes for remediation, then it surely failed its prior health inspection.
- If a restaurant passes its health inspection, then it need not close at all for remediation.
- A restaurant must close for remediation unless it first failed its scheduled inspection.
- Any restaurant that fails its required health inspection will then remain closed for good.
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