- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#23763
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning-PR. The correct answer choice is (C)
The stimulus observes that currently the city of Grimchester is liable for injury caused by sidewalks in need of repair or maintenance. The stimulus then points out that the sidewalks are too extensive for the city to hire enough employees to eliminate every danger, and the stimulus then proposes the principle that governments should only be held liable if they were first knowledgeable and second negligent.
While the principle may be questionable, in that it goes too far, you should realize that it is merely proposed as what we presume is a means of resolving Grimchester’s difficulties.
Essentially, you are asked to find a situation in which the current method and the proposed principle would disagree, and you told that in the correct choice the city will be liable under the current conditions, but not liable under the principle. Since practically any repair issue causes liability currently, it is easiest initially to look for a choice in which the principle’s necessary condition for liability is not met. The necessary condition is that the city must be both aware and negligent. If the city is either not aware or not negligent, the city is not liable.
Answer choice (A): Since a person who trips on a sidewalk that the city has known for some time is in bad repair could likely be covered under the new principle, this choice does not present a liability that the principle would eliminate.
Answer choice (B): Since this choice is about a bit of litter rather than the inherent condition of the sidewalk, it is unclear that the city would be liable under the current circumstances, so this choice might not present a situation in which the current judgment differs from judgment under the principle.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. A person who is injured by stepping in a large hole in the sidewalk would definitely be covered under the current situation, but would most likely not be covered under the principle. Even though notification, therefore knowledge, has occurred, the fact that the administration learned of the problem only moments before means that the administration has not been negligent in addressing that knowledge. Since the necessary condition of negligence fails, the city would not be liable.
Answer choice (D): In the case of the severely intoxicated, the person rather than the sidewalk is in need of repair or maintenance, so in neither the current nor the principle situation would the city be liable.
Answer choice (E): Since injury by swerving bicycles is not a sidewalk repair or maintenance issue, there is no reason to believe that the city would be liable in either the current or the principle situation.
Parallel Reasoning-PR. The correct answer choice is (C)
The stimulus observes that currently the city of Grimchester is liable for injury caused by sidewalks in need of repair or maintenance. The stimulus then points out that the sidewalks are too extensive for the city to hire enough employees to eliminate every danger, and the stimulus then proposes the principle that governments should only be held liable if they were first knowledgeable and second negligent.
While the principle may be questionable, in that it goes too far, you should realize that it is merely proposed as what we presume is a means of resolving Grimchester’s difficulties.
Essentially, you are asked to find a situation in which the current method and the proposed principle would disagree, and you told that in the correct choice the city will be liable under the current conditions, but not liable under the principle. Since practically any repair issue causes liability currently, it is easiest initially to look for a choice in which the principle’s necessary condition for liability is not met. The necessary condition is that the city must be both aware and negligent. If the city is either not aware or not negligent, the city is not liable.
Answer choice (A): Since a person who trips on a sidewalk that the city has known for some time is in bad repair could likely be covered under the new principle, this choice does not present a liability that the principle would eliminate.
Answer choice (B): Since this choice is about a bit of litter rather than the inherent condition of the sidewalk, it is unclear that the city would be liable under the current circumstances, so this choice might not present a situation in which the current judgment differs from judgment under the principle.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. A person who is injured by stepping in a large hole in the sidewalk would definitely be covered under the current situation, but would most likely not be covered under the principle. Even though notification, therefore knowledge, has occurred, the fact that the administration learned of the problem only moments before means that the administration has not been negligent in addressing that knowledge. Since the necessary condition of negligence fails, the city would not be liable.
Answer choice (D): In the case of the severely intoxicated, the person rather than the sidewalk is in need of repair or maintenance, so in neither the current nor the principle situation would the city be liable.
Answer choice (E): Since injury by swerving bicycles is not a sidewalk repair or maintenance issue, there is no reason to believe that the city would be liable in either the current or the principle situation.