Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardSufficient Assumption

Complete the legal theorist's formal argument by filling in the blank with the precise condition that logically guarantees the argument's conclusion.

Answer:Premise 1: Any sovereign trade agreement that lacks binding multilateral enforcement mechanisms is incapable of deterring state-sponsored cyberespionage.
Premise 2: Any regulatory framework that 【is incapable of deterring state-sponsored cyberespionage】 fails to protect critical national infrastructure.
Premise 3: The Proposed Trans-Pacific Cyber Accord is a sovereign trade agreement that lacks binding multilateral enforcement mechanisms.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Proposed Trans-Pacific Cyber Accord fails to protect critical national infrastructure.

Answer

is incapable of deterring state-sponsored cyberespionage
Premise 1 and Premise 3 together prove deductively that the Proposed Trans-Pacific Cyber Accord is incapable of deterring state-sponsored cyberespionage. For the conclusion ('The Accord fails to protect critical national infrastructure') to follow with absolute certainty, Premise 2 must establish a universal rule dictating that any framework that is incapable of deterring state-sponsored cyberespionage inevitably fails to protect critical national infrastructure. Inserting 'is incapable of deterring state-sponsored cyberespionage' completes the valid transitive chain (A→B→C→D)(A \rightarrow B \rightarrow C \rightarrow D).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Isolate the established premises and the target conclusion
Premise 3 and Premise 1 establish that the Proposed Trans-Pacific Cyber Accord belongs to the category of agreements that are incapable of deterring state-sponsored cyberespionage. The conclusion asserts that the Accord fails to protect critical national infrastructure.
Deconstructing the argument into formal conditional terms reveals the starting subject and the final deduced attribute.
2
Map the inferential gap between the intermediate predicate and the conclusion
We have the chain: [Trans-Pacific Accord] →\rightarrow [Lacks binding enforcement] →\rightarrow [Incapable of deterring cyberespionage]. The conclusion requires: [Trans-Pacific Accord] →\rightarrow [Fails to protect critical national infrastructure].
A sufficient assumption must provide a 100% deductive bridge linking the intermediate property to the final predicate.
3
Formulate the missing universal conditional statement
Premise 2 must state that [Incapable of deterring cyberespionage] →\rightarrow [Fails to protect critical national infrastructure]. Therefore, the blank must be filled with 'is incapable of deterring state-sponsored cyberespionage'.
Supplying this specific antecedent completes the unbroken conditional chain: [Accord] →\rightarrow [Incapable of deterring cyberespionage] →\rightarrow [Fails to protect infrastructure].

Key Concept

Sufficient Conditional Bridging in Formal Syllogisms
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Sufficient Assumption

More questions from this topic