Top Law Schools

I know all the other answers are wrong, but I think the answer (E) is really sketchy. I mean, do you really think reasonable forethought would have shown that conversing with another person would lead to your niece getting hit by a bike? Perhaps she ran off so quickly that no one could have prevented it?

Thoughts?

I think the action was NOT watching his three-year-old niece. I think it's reasonable to predict that not watching a three-year-old playing might result in that kid hurting herself. And, as you said, (E) is the best of the bunch.

What do you think?

Atlas LSAT Teacher wrote:I think the action was NOT watching his three-year-old niece. I think it's reasonable to predict that not watching a three-year-old playing might result in that kid hurting herself. And, as you said, (E) is the best of the bunch.

What do you think?

I interpreted the "action" as being engrossed in the conversation, which is why I thought that it was questionable to say that you can reasonably expect that talking to someone will cause harm to your niece. However, I see your point and I guess in this cause an inaction qualifies as an action. Still hate this question though :p

yeah - sort of tricky. Seems like the parallel reasoning brings up bile in lots of people!