Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardChaining Conditional Statements

A national health ministry is establishing new regulatory standards for clinical trials. The regulations are governed by the following conditional rules:

- Any trial that tests a novel medical device must undergo a rigorous safety audit.
- A rigorous safety audit is conducted only if the trial employs an independent oversight committee.
- If a trial employs an independent oversight committee, then it must allocate five percent of its budget to patient advocacy.
- A trial cannot employ an independent oversight committee if it is exclusively sponsored by a for-profit pharmaceutical company.
- Unless a trial allocates five percent of its budget to patient advocacy, it cannot qualify for the federal innovation grant.
- All trials that are exclusively sponsored by a for-profit pharmaceutical company must undergo a commercial viability review.

Match each proposed clinical trial profile below with the deductive inference that must logically follow from the regulations.

  • A trial that tests a novel medical deviceMust employ an independent oversight committee and allocate five percent of its budget to patient advocacy
  • A trial exclusively sponsored by a for-profit pharmaceutical companyMust undergo a commercial viability review and cannot test a novel medical device
  • A trial that qualifies for the federal innovation grant but does not employ an independent oversight committeeMust allocate five percent of its budget to patient advocacy and cannot undergo a rigorous safety audit
  • A trial that fails to allocate five percent of its budget to patient advocacyCannot qualify for the federal innovation grant and cannot test a novel medical device

Answer

The correct matches pair each trial profile with its necessary deductive inferences: 1) Testing a novel medical device pairs with employing an oversight committee and allocating budget to patient advocacy. 2) For-profit sponsorship pairs with undergoing a commercial viability review and being unable to test a novel device. 3) Qualifying for the federal grant without an oversight committee pairs with allocating budget to patient advocacy and avoiding a rigorous safety audit. 4) Failing to allocate budget to patient advocacy pairs with being unable to qualify for the federal grant and unable to test a novel medical device.
Each correct match is derived by applying the rules of formal logic—specifically transitive chaining and contrapositives—to the conditional regulations provided. Testing a novel device triggers a chain reaction leading to patient advocacy funding. Corporate sponsorship forbids the oversight committee, which backwards-chains to forbid testing a novel device. The federal grant requires patient advocacy, while lacking an oversight committee backwards-chains to forbid the safety audit. Failing to fund patient advocacy backwards-chains to eliminate the federal grant and all prerequisites leading up to patient advocacy.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Translate the regulatory rules into formal conditional statements using abbreviations.
Let ND = novel device, RSA = rigorous safety audit, IOC = independent oversight committee, PA = patient advocacy, FPC = for-profit pharmaceutical company, FIG = federal innovation grant, CVR = commercial viability review.
Rule 1: ND -> RSA
Rule 2: RSA -> IOC
Rule 3: IOC -> PA
Rule 4: FPC -> ~IOC
Rule 5: FIG -> PA (translated from 'Unless PA, ~FIG')
Rule 6: FPC -> CVR
Converting natural language with complex indicators ('only if', 'unless', 'cannot... if') into formal logic simplifies the deduction process and exposes transitive relationships.
2
Combine the conditional statements into logical chains.
Core Chain: ND -> RSA -> IOC -> PA
Branch 1: FPC -> ~IOC and FPC -> CVR
Branch 2: FIG -> PA
Contrapositive of Core Chain: ~PA -> ~IOC -> ~RSA -> ~ND
Connecting overlapping necessary and sufficient conditions creates the deductive pathways required to solve the question.
3
Analyze each trial profile against the established chains to identify the necessary inferences.
Profile 1 (ND): Following the Core Chain, ND guarantees RSA, IOC, and PA.
Profile 2 (FPC): FPC guarantees CVR, and triggers ~IOC. Through the contrapositive chain, ~IOC -> ~RSA -> ~ND.
Profile 3 (FIG and ~IOC): FIG guarantees PA. The condition ~IOC triggers the contrapositive ~IOC -> ~RSA -> ~ND. Thus, PA and ~RSA are deduced.
Profile 4 (~PA): Taking the contrapositive of Branch 2, ~PA -> ~FIG. Through the contrapositive of the Core Chain, ~PA -> ~IOC -> ~RSA -> ~ND. Thus, ~FIG and ~ND are deduced.
Matching the given conditions in the profiles to the beginning of the logical chains reveals all downstream deductions.

Key Concept

Chaining Conditional Statements and Contrapositives
Rate this question

Topics

Chaining Conditional Statements

More questions from this topic