Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardDrawing Valid Inferences

Under the 2024 Agro-Export Reform Act, any regional grain cooperative seeking federal tariff exemptions must obtain a Grade-A sustainability certification. To qualify for Grade-A status, a cooperative must either reduce its synthetic nitrogen runoff by at least 35%35\% relative to 2020 levels or transition at least 50%50\% of its cultivated acreage to organic soil management. Furthermore, no cooperative that receives municipal water subsidies is eligible for federal tariff exemptions, regardless of its sustainability certification level. Last year, the Sun Valley Agricultural Cooperative received a federal tariff exemption under the Act.

Consider each of the choices separately and select all that apply. Which of the following statements must be true based on the information above?

  1. Sun Valley Agricultural Cooperative did not receive municipal water subsidies last year.Answer
  2. Sun Valley Agricultural Cooperative satisfied at least one of the two qualifying conditions for Grade-A sustainability certification.Answer
  3. C
    Any regional grain cooperative that satisfies the criteria for Grade-A sustainability certification is guaranteed to receive a federal tariff exemption.

Answer

The statements that must be true are that Sun Valley Agricultural Cooperative did not receive municipal water subsidies last year, and that Sun Valley satisfied at least one of the two qualifying conditions for Grade-A sustainability certification.
The passage establishes two mandatory constraints for receiving a federal tariff exemption: obtaining Grade-A sustainability certification (which requires meeting at least one of two environmental benchmarks) and not receiving municipal water subsidies. Because Sun Valley received an exemption, both necessary conditions must have been met. Therefore, it is logically undeniable that Sun Valley did not receive municipal water subsidies and that it satisfied at least one of the two Grade-A sustainability benchmarks.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the conditional premises provided in the passage.
Premise 1: Exemption →\rightarrow Grade-A Certification.
Premise 2: Grade-A Certification →\rightarrow (35%35\% Nitrogen Reduction OR 50%50\% Organic Transition).
Premise 3: Municipal Water Subsidy →\rightarrow NO Exemption (Contrapositive: Exemption →\rightarrow NO Municipal Water Subsidy).
Fact: Sun Valley received an Exemption last year.
Deconstructing the rules into formal logical statements allows for rigorous deductive evaluation of each candidate choice.
2
Evaluate the statement concerning municipal water subsidies.
From the contrapositive of Premise 3, receiving an exemption necessitates not receiving municipal water subsidies. Thus, Sun Valley could not have received subsidies.
Direct contrapositive deduction from explicit passage facts.
3
Evaluate the statement concerning Grade-A qualification criteria.
Since Sun Valley received an exemption, it must have obtained Grade-A certification (Premise 1), which requires fulfilling at least one of the two specified environmental criteria (Premise 2).
Chaining conditional premises produces a necessary conclusion.
4
Evaluate the statement claiming Grade-A certification guarantees an exemption.
Grade-A status is necessary for exemption, not sufficient. A cooperative with Grade-A status that also receives water subsidies would be denied exemption.
Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions is a formal logical error.

Key Concept

Deductive Logic and Contrapositive Inference in Critical Reasoning
Rate this question

Topics

Drawing Valid Inferences

More questions from this topic