CLAT Foundation Practice Test - 03

CLAT Prep - Module 3

Module 3.1: Legal Reasoning - The Tort of Negligence & The Reasonable Person Standard

Why this matters for CLAT: Negligence is a broad, principle-based concept perfect for CLAT. The core is the "Reasonable Person Standard," an abstract concept that requires pure analytical skill, not memorization.

Concept Notes: The Four Elements of Negligence

A plaintiff must prove: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages. We will focus on the first two.

1. Duty of Care: The "Neighbour Principle"

The Principle: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure persons so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought to have them in mind.
Simple Translation: If you can predict that your action could hurt someone, you have a duty to be careful.

2. Breach of Duty: The "Reasonable Person" Standard

The law compares the defendant's conduct to that of a "reasonable person of ordinary prudence."

• Who is the Reasonable Person? A hypothetical, prudent, careful individual. They represent the community's ideal of good sense.
• The Test is Objective: It asks, "What would a reasonable person have done?" not "Did the defendant do their best?" Beginners are held to the same standard as experts in the same field.
• Context Matters: The standard changes with the situation. A person with a special skill (e.g., a doctor) is held to a higher standard: the standard of a "reasonable doctor."

Mentor's Advice

Use this mental checklist:
1. Duty: Was the victim a foreseeable "neighbour"?
2. Breach: What precautions would a "reasonable person" have taken? Did the defendant fail to take them? That failure is the breach.

Module 3.2: Logical Reasoning - Identifying Flaws in Arguments

Why this matters for CLAT: This is an advanced version of "weakening an argument." You must diagnose the specific logical error the author has committed.

Concept Notes: Common Logical Fallacies (Flaws)

• Correlation vs. Causation: Assuming that because two things happen together, one causes the other.
• False Dichotomy: Presenting only two choices when more exist.
• Ad Hominem (Personal Attack): Attacking the person, not their argument.
• Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion from a small sample.
• Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.

Mentor's Advice

Focus on the link between the premise and the conclusion. Ask: "Does the evidence really lead to this conclusion, or has the author taken a questionable logical shortcut?"

Access Practice Test

Enter your name and the password to begin.

Your Name:

Password:

Incorrect Password. Please try again.

Foundation Test - 03

Time Left

25:00

Instructions: +1 for a correct answer, -0.25 for a wrong answer. Unanswered questions get 0 marks.

Less than 1 minute remaining!

Passage 1: Legal Reasoning
The tort of negligence requires a plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, breached that duty, and thereby caused them harm. The standard for determining a breach of duty is objective, based on the conduct of a "reasonable person of ordinary prudence." The law does not account for the defendant's individual shortcomings; it demands a uniform standard of behavior. This "reasonable person" is a legal fiction, a composite of the community's judgment on how a person should act in a given situation to avoid creating undue risk to others. The measure of care increases with the likelihood and severity of the potential harm. For instance, a person handling explosives is expected to exercise a much higher degree of care than someone carrying a shopping bag. Similarly, a person professing a special skill, such as a surgeon, is held not to the standard of an ordinary person, but to the standard of a reasonably competent member of their profession.

1. An employee at a supermarket mops a section of the floor but fails to put up a "Wet Floor" sign. A customer, engrossed in their phone, walks into the wet area, slips, and fractures their arm. The customer sues the supermarket for negligence. What is the likely outcome?

(A) The supermarket is not liable because the customer was also negligent by not looking where they were going.(B) The supermarket is not liable because the employee's personal best might not have included remembering the sign.(C) The supermarket is liable because a reasonable person managing a public space would foresee the risk of slipping and take the simple precaution of putting up a sign.(D) The supermarket is only liable if the employee intentionally left the sign off to play a prank.

2. In the same scenario as Q1, a person walking on the public pavement outside the supermarket slips on a puddle of water that was carried out on the shoes of other customers leaving the store. This person sues the supermarket. The supermarket's strongest defense would be:

(A) They had no knowledge that water was being carried outside.(B) It is the city's responsibility to keep the public pavement safe.(C) Their legal duty of care did not extend to unforeseeable events on public property outside their premises.(D) The person should have been more careful where they were walking.

3. If the supermarket employee in Q1 had put up a large, clearly visible "Wet Floor" sign, and the customer, despite seeing the sign, decided to run through the wet area and slipped, the supermarket would likely:

(A) Still be liable, as they created the dangerous condition.(B) Not be liable, as they took the precautions a reasonable person would take, thus fulfilling their duty of care.(C) Be liable, but for a reduced amount of damages.(D) Not be liable, because the customer's act of running was the sole cause of the injury.

4. The "reasonable person" standard is described as "objective" because:

(A) It aims to achieve a just and fair outcome in every case.(B) It is based on the judge's personal opinion of what is reasonable.(C) It does not consider the defendant's personal state of mind, intelligence, or experience, but measures their conduct against a uniform, external standard.(D) It only applies to tangible, objective harm like physical injury, not emotional distress.

5. A person suffers a heart attack. A passerby, who is a trained and practicing cardiologist, administers CPR incorrectly, worsening the patient's condition. The patient's family sues the cardiologist for negligence. The cardiologist's actions will be judged against the standard of:

(A) A regular person attempting to help in an emergency.(B) An exceptionally skilled, top-tier heart surgeon.(C) A reasonably competent and skilled cardiologist.(D) The cardiologist's own level of training and experience.

Passage 2: Logical Reasoning
The push for a global transition to renewable energy sources like wind and solar is based on a dangerously oversimplified narrative. Proponents endlessly cite the environmental damage of fossil fuels while conveniently ignoring the significant drawbacks of their preferred alternatives. Wind turbines are a blight on the landscape and a deadly hazard to migratory birds. The production of solar panels and the high-capacity batteries required for energy storage involves extensive mining for rare earth metals, a process that devastates local ecosystems and often relies on exploitative labor practices. Furthermore, these sources are inherently unreliable; the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine. To choose this path is to trade one set of environmental problems for another, while crippling our energy security. Therefore, a continued reliance on proven, reliable fossil fuels remains the only sensible path forward.

6. The primary flaw in the author's overall argument is that it:

(A) Fails to consider the economic benefits of the fossil fuel industry.(B) Relies on emotional language rather than factual evidence.(C) Attacks the character of renewable energy proponents instead of their arguments.(D) Commits a false dichotomy by presenting the choice as either flawed renewables or perfect fossil fuels, ignoring the well-known harms of the latter.

7. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's conclusion?

(A) The cost of mining rare earth metals has been steadily increasing.(B) Recent advancements in battery technology and smart grid systems have made it possible to store and distribute renewable energy effectively, ensuring a consistent power supply.(C) A prominent environmental group has recently launched a campaign against the aesthetic impact of wind turbines.(D) Many countries with significant fossil fuel reserves have powerful political lobbies that support the industry.

8. The author's argument that renewable sources are "inherently unreliable" would be most strengthened by which of the following?

(A) A report showing that solar panel efficiency decreases slightly in extremely high temperatures.(B) Evidence that the construction of new hydroelectric dams, another form of renewable energy, is no longer feasible in most regions.(C) A case study of a region that, despite heavy investment in wind power, experienced frequent blackouts during periods of low wind.(D) An admission by a solar company CEO that battery technology is still in its early stages.

9. The author mentions "exploitative labor practices" in the mining of rare earth metals in order to:

(A) Suggest that fossil fuel extraction involves no similar ethical issues.(B) Broaden the critique of renewables beyond purely environmental concerns to include social and ethical ones.(C) Prove that all technological advancement comes at a human cost.(D) Propose better international labor laws as a solution.

10. A logical critique of the passage would point out that the author's reasoning is flawed because it:

(A) Assumes that the environmental impact of renewables is greater than that of fossil fuels without providing a comparative analysis.(B) Generalizes about all renewable technologies based on problems associated with only wind and solar.(C) Fails to provide a clear definition of what constitutes "energy security."(D) Ignores the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource.

Passage 3: Legal Reasoning
In the law of negligence, a manufacturer of a product owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer to ensure the product is free from defects that could cause foreseeable harm. This principle obligates the manufacturer to undertake reasonable checks and maintain quality control during the production process. The duty is not absolute; the manufacturer is not an insurer against all possible harm, but they must act as a reasonably prudent manufacturer would in the circumstances. A breach of this duty occurs if a product is released to the market in a condition that presents a risk of harm during normal use. However, the chain of causation can be broken. If a consumer knowingly misuses the product in a way that is expressly warned against, or if a third party modifies the product in a dangerous way after it has left the factory, the manufacturer may be absolved of liability for any resulting injury.

11. A company manufactures and sells a new model of electric kettle. Due to a wiring fault in a specific batch, the kettles are prone to short-circuiting and catching fire. A customer buys one, and it catches fire, causing minor burns and property damage. The customer sues the company. The company is likely:

(A) Not liable, because it is impossible to check every single product.(B) Liable, because a reasonable manufacturer would have quality control systems in place to prevent such a dangerous defect from reaching the consumer.(C) Not liable, if they can prove the customer was using the kettle more frequently than an average person.(D) Liable, but only for the cost of the kettle itself.

12. Suppose in the above scenario, the kettle came with a clear warning: "DANGER: Do not attempt to repair or modify. For household use only." An electronics hobbyist buys the kettle, modifies its internal wiring to try and make it boil faster, and as a result of the modification, it catches fire. If the hobbyist sues, the company's strongest defense is that:

(A) The hobbyist was not a regular consumer.(B) The company's breach of duty did not cause the injury; the hobbyist's own actions broke the chain of causation.(C) The kettle was not expensive, so the expectation of safety should be lower.(D) The fire was a small one and did not cause significant damage.

13. A mother buys a new, defectively manufactured toy for her child. The toy has a small part that breaks off easily, and the child chokes on it. The toy company argues it only owes a duty of care to the purchaser (the mother), not the user (the child). Is this argument likely to succeed?

(A) Yes, because the contract of sale was only with the mother.(B) Yes, because the mother should have inspected the toy before giving it to the child.(C) No, because the child is a foreseeable ultimate consumer/user of the product, and thus the company owes a duty of care to them.(D) No, because children are a vulnerable group and receive special protection under the law.

14. The standard of a "reasonably prudent manufacturer" requires a company to:

(A) Produce a product that is 100% safe under all conceivable circumstances.(B) Warn consumers about every possible risk, no matter how remote.(C) Take cost-effective precautions to eliminate foreseeable risks of harm during normal product use.(D) Issue a recall for any product as soon as a single user reports an injury.

15. A power tool is sold with a clear and adequate warning that it can cause severe injury if used without a safety guard. A professional carpenter, who has used such tools for years, removes the safety guard to make a difficult cut more easily. He is injured and sues the manufacturer. The manufacturer is likely not liable because:

(A) Professionals are expected to assume all risks associated with their work.(B) The tool was not defective; the injury was caused by the user knowingly disregarding a clear safety instruction.(C) The manufacturer cannot control how its products are used after sale.(D) The carpenter's employer should have provided a safer tool.

Passage 4: Logical Reasoning
The modern obsession with so-called "ancestral diets" is a triumph of marketing over science. Gurus and influencers advocate for eating patterns supposedly based on what our Paleolithic ancestors consumed, claiming it is the key to optimal health and a cure for chronic diseases. They point to the fact that ancient humans did not suffer from modern ailments like type-2 diabetes or heart disease as proof of this diet's superiority. Dr. Helena Vance, a famous actress and wellness advocate, has sworn by the "Paleo" diet, attributing her radiant health to it. But this entire line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. It romantically presumes a single "ancient diet," when in reality, diets were incredibly diverse based on geography. More importantly, it ignores the brutal reality that the average lifespan was around 30 years; ancient humans didn't live long enough to develop most chronic diseases of aging.

16. The primary flaw that the author identifies in the reasoning of "ancestral diet" proponents is that:

(A) They rely on the testimony of celebrities rather than scientists.(B) They incorrectly assume that because two things are correlated (ancient diet and lack of chronic disease), one causes the other.(C) They fail to provide enough recipes for their followers.(D) They overestimate the difficulty of following a modern, healthy diet.

17. The author's mention of "Dr. Helena Vance, a famous actress," is intended to highlight which specific logical fallacy?

(A) Hasty Generalization, by using one person's experience to represent everyone.(B) Ad Hominem, by attacking Dr. Vance's character.(C) Appeal to Inappropriate Authority, by using a non-expert (an actress) to validate a scientific claim.(D) Straw Man, by misrepresenting the actress's actual diet.

18. The argument for ancestral diets, as described in the passage, makes which of the following questionable assumptions?

(A) Our genetic makeup and digestive systems are essentially identical to those of our Paleolithic ancestors.(B) All foods available today are processed and unhealthy.(C) It is impossible to be healthy while following a vegetarian diet.(D) Ancient humans were happier and more fulfilled than modern humans.

19. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's critique of ancestral diets?

(A) New archaeological evidence shows that some Paleolithic groups had a much more varied diet than previously thought.(B) Many people who try the "Paleo" diet report feeling more energetic and losing weight.(C) Recent genetic studies have demonstrated that key metabolic functions in modern humans remain poorly adapted to the agricultural, grain-based diets introduced only 10,000 years ago.(D) The average lifespan of Paleolithic humans was primarily limited by factors like predation, infant mortality, and infectious disease, not diet-related illness.

20. The author's main purpose in this passage is to:

(A) Provide a detailed history of the Paleolithic era.(B) Argue that type-2 diabetes is not a serious modern ailment.(C) Expose the logical and factual errors in the arguments for ancestral diets.(D) Advocate for a specific alternative diet plan.

Well Done!

Your Final Score

0.00

0 Correct

0 Incorrect

0 Unanswered

Detailed Analysis