(Legal Aptitude II) Flashcards
7 cards from real LNAT practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 (Legal Aptitude II) flashcards as text
A teenager aged 15 signs a contract to buy a luxury sports car. The seller wishes to enforce it. What is the most likely legal position in a common law jurisdiction?
Answer: The contract is voidable at the minor's option and unenforceable by the seller.
At common law, contracts for non-necessaries made by minors are voidable at the minor's election, and the adult party cannot enforce them.
An argument concludes: 'We should lower the voting age to 16 because 16-year-olds can drive and pay taxes.' What type of reasoning is being used?
Answer: Argument by analogy
The argument draws a parallel between civic responsibilities already assigned to 16-year-olds and the responsibility of voting.
Which of the following best distinguishes civil law from criminal law?
Answer: In civil law the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities; in criminal law it is beyond reasonable doubt.
The key distinction is the standard of proof: civil cases require proof on the balance of probabilities, while criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A passage argues that social media companies should be liable for all defamatory content posted by users. Which counter-argument directly undermines the main premise?
Answer: Imposing such liability would make platforms unviable, stifling free speech.
This counter-argument attacks the policy rationale by showing that strict liability would have serious negative consequences, undermining the case for the rule.
Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, a defendant is strictly liable when they:
Answer: Bring something onto land that is likely to do mischief if it escapes, and it does escape.
Rylands v Fletcher established that a person who brings and keeps a dangerous thing on land is strictly liable if it escapes and causes damage, without need to prove negligence.
A written law states that 'dogs must be kept on a lead in this park.' A blind person enters with a guide dog off-lead. A purposive interpretation would most likely conclude:
Answer: Guide dogs are implicitly exempt because the law's purpose is public safety, not restricting assistance animals.
A purposive approach looks at the law's aim—preventing dangerous dog behaviour—and would not apply the rule to a trained guide dog serving a disability need.
An advocate argues: 'Our client cannot be convicted because many other people commit similar offences and are not prosecuted.' This argument is:
Answer: Irrelevant to guilt or innocence, since others' unprosecuted conduct does not negate the defendant's act.
The fact that others commit similar offences and escape prosecution does not affect whether this defendant committed the alleged act.