Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardAssumptions in Conditional Logic

Read the following argument and evaluate the statement below it.

Argument: A pharmaceutical company can receive expedited regulatory approval for a new drug only if the drug treats a life-threatening condition and demonstrates significant clinical improvement over existing therapies. Vaxica's new drug demonstrates significant clinical improvement over existing therapies, yet the regulatory board denied it expedited approval. Therefore, Vaxica's new drug must not treat a life-threatening condition.

Statement: The argument's reasoning relies on assuming that treating a life-threatening condition and demonstrating significant clinical improvement over existing therapies are sufficient conditions for receiving expedited regulatory approval.

Answer: Answer

Answer

True
The statement is true because the argument commits a classic formal logic flaw: confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The phrase 'only if' indicates that treating a life-threatening condition and demonstrating improvement are necessary for approval. By concluding that the drug must lack the first condition simply because it was denied approval (despite meeting the second condition), the author assumes that there are no other possible reasons for denial. This is logically identical to assuming that meeting those two conditions is sufficient to guarantee approval.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Diagram the conditional logic in the argument's premises.
Premise 1: Expedited Approval → Treats Life-Threatening Condition (L) AND Demonstrates Improvement (I). Premise 2: Drug has I. Premise 3: Drug does NOT have Expedited Approval.
Mapping the explicit conditional statements is necessary to identify logical gaps.
2
Analyze the argument's conclusion in relation to the premises.
The conclusion is that the drug does NOT have L. The author infers the absence of one necessary condition from the absence of the sufficient condition.
Understanding how the author attempts to connect the evidence to the conclusion reveals the unstated assumption.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed assumption.
Negated assumption: L and I are NOT sufficient for Expedited Approval. If true, the drug could have L and I, but still be denied approval. In this scenario, knowing the drug was denied approval and has I does NOT prove it lacks L.
The Negation Test definitively proves whether an assumption is strictly necessary for an argument's conclusion to follow.
4
Evaluate the statement based on the Negation Test.
Because negating the assumption destroys the argument, the assumption is logically required. Therefore, the statement is True.
An argument relies on an assumption if the argument fails when that assumption is false.

Key Concept

Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions and the Negation Test
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Assumptions in Conditional Logic

More questions from this topic