Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumParallel Conditional Logic

Any soil treatment designed to maximize crop yield must contain high levels of nitrogen. However, no organic fertilizer contains high levels of nitrogen. Therefore, no organic fertilizer is designed to maximize crop yield.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its logical features to the argument above?

  1. Every properly drafted legal contract includes a severability clause. No document written by a layperson includes a severability clause. Hence, no document written by a layperson is a properly drafted legal contract.Answer
  2. B
    All commercially successful films require extensive marketing budgets. No independent documentary is a commercially successful film. Therefore, no independent documentary requires an extensive marketing budget.
  3. C
    Any athlete aiming for the Olympics must maintain a strict training regimen. All elite gymnasts maintain a strict training regimen. Therefore, all elite gymnasts are aiming for the Olympics.
  4. D
    Every renowned architect has studied structural engineering. Most interior designers have not studied structural engineering. Therefore, most interior designers are not renowned architects.
  5. E
    Nitrogen is essential for maximizing crop yield, which is why synthetic fertilizers contain high levels of it. Organic fertilizers, however, rely on different mechanisms. Therefore, organic fertilizers are better for long-term soil health.

Answer

The argument demonstrating that since every properly drafted legal contract includes a severability clause, and no document written by a layperson includes one, no document written by a layperson is properly drafted.
The correct answer perfectly replicates the formal logical structure of the stimulus. The stimulus argues: All A are B (Yield -> Nitrogen); No C is B (Organic -> ~Nitrogen); Therefore, no C is A (Organic -> ~Yield). The correct option identically reasons: All A are B (Properly drafted -> Severability); No C is B (Layperson -> ~Severability); Therefore, no C is A (Layperson -> ~Properly drafted). Both are valid applications of contrapositive reasoning using matching absolute quantifiers.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Abstract the formal logic of the stimulus.
Premise 1: Maximize Yield (M) -> High Nitrogen (H). Premise 2: Organic (O) -> ~High Nitrogen (~H). Conclusion: Organic (O) -> ~Maximize Yield (~M).
Identifying the symbolic structure reveals a valid application of the contrapositive across a universal 'no' statement.
2
Summarize the argument's core pattern.
The pattern is: All A are B; No C is B; Therefore, No C is A.
This abstracted template serves as the blueprint for evaluating the answer choices.
3
Evaluate the answer choices against the established blueprint.
Only the option discussing legal contracts matches the template: Properly Drafted (A) -> Severability (B); Layperson (C) -> ~Severability (~B); Therefore, Layperson (C) -> ~Properly Drafted (~A).
Finding an exact structural match, including validity and quantifier strength, is required to correctly answer a parallel reasoning question.

Key Concept

Parallel Conditional Logic
Rate this question

Topics

Parallel Conditional Logic

More questions from this topic