Sharadha Kumar IQ APTITUDE & ABILITY - Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: A person is guilty of assault if they intentionally create a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another person. FACT: John raises his fist and moves aggressively towards Mike but stops just short of hitting him. Mike, believing he would be hit, flinches and steps back. Is John guilty of assault?

A. Yes, because he created a reasonable apprehension of being hit in Mike.. B. No, because he did not actually hit Mike.. C. Yes, because he moved aggressively towards Mike.. D. No, because Mike was not harmed..

Like(0)

disLike (0)

Comment(0)

Explanation

The principle of assault includes the creation of reasonable apprehension of harmful contact. John's actions made Mike reasonably believe he would be hit, fulfilling the criteria for assault.

Sharadha Kumar IQ APTITUDE & ABILITY - Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: Negligence occurs when a person fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in damage or harm to another. FACT: David leaves his dog unattended in a park known for having aggressive stray dogs. The stray dogs attack David’s dog, causing serious injuries. Is David negligent?

A. Yes, because he left his dog unattended.. B. No, because the harm was caused by stray dogs.. C. Yes, because he failed to exercise reasonable care in a known risky area.. D. No, because he had no control over the stray dogs..

Like(0)

disLike (0)

Comment(0)

Explanation

Negligence involves failing to take reasonable care to prevent harm. Leaving his dog unattended in a risky area demonstrates a lack of reasonable care on David's part.

Sharadha Kumar IQ APTITUDE & ABILITY - Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly take property belonging to another person with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. FACT: Carla borrows her neighbor’s lawnmower without permission, intending to return it after using it for a day. She does return it the next day. Is Carla guilty of theft?

A. Yes, because she took the property without permission.. B. No, because she intended to return the property.. C. Yes, because she deprived the owner of the property temporarily.. D. No, because the lawnmower was not damaged..

Like(0)

disLike (0)

Comment(0)

Explanation

According to the principle, theft requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Since Carla intended to return the lawnmower, she is not guilty of theft.

Sharadha Kumar IQ APTITUDE & ABILITY - Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: A contract is voidable if one of the parties was coerced into signing it. FACT: Emma agrees to sell her car to Liam after Liam threatens to reveal a personal secret about her if she does not comply. Is the contract between Emma and Liam valid?

A. Yes, because Emma agreed to the terms of the contract.. B. No, because Emma was coerced into the agreement.. C. Yes, because Liam did not use physical force.. D. No, because Emma can prove the secret is false..

Like(0)

disLike (0)

Comment(0)

Explanation

The principle states that a contract is voidable if coercion is involved. Since Liam threatened Emma, her consent was not freely given, making the contract voidable.

Sharadha Kumar IQ APTITUDE & ABILITY - Legal Reasoning

PRINCIPLE: A person is liable for defamation if they make a false statement about another person, which harms that person’s reputation. FACT: Alex publishes an article claiming that Bob, a well-known actor, has been involved in illegal drug activities. Bob files a defamation suit against Alex. Alex argues that the information was provided by a reliable source. Is ALEX liable for defamation?

A. Yes, because the statement was published and harmed Bob's reputation.. B. No, because Alex relied on a reliable source for the information.. C. Yes, because Alex made a false statement about Bob.. D. No, because Bob is a public figure and must prove actual malice..

Like(0)

disLike (0)

Comment(0)

Explanation

According to the principle, a false statement that harms someone's reputation constitutes defamation. The fact that Alex relied on a source is irrelevant if the statement is false and harmful.