IMO: C
Premises: In a University, there is an old carpet.An external authority wants the light to be replaced (so that people can see this old carpet better). However, a student fell off, sustained injuries and files a suit.
Qn Stem : What is his case?
Pre-thinking: University should have changed the changed the carpet or the light.University’s mistake.
Options:
(A) The concrete steps, because they were hard, worsened Fred’s injuries-
Not in line with prethinking. Concrete steps are the least to be blamed for this accident.
(B) The university is responsible for the condition of the carpet-
This would have been the right choice, if there was no mention of this external authority pointing out to University to change the burned out light.
The author means to say that, it’s fine you have an old carpet ; at least make it visible enough
(C) The burned-out light constitutes negligence- Correct
(D) The distance Fred fell worsened his injuries.- Similar to A
(E) The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has no jurisdiction over the university- Out of scope. Why on earth will the attorney be concerned about this?
Posted from my mobile device