Argument Evaluation

289 questions

Question 141Question →

Consider the following argument: Over the past decade, city statistics show a strong correlation between the number of ice cream cones sold and the number of shark attacks at local beaches. Clearly, eating ice cream makes a person more attractive to sharks.

The logical flaw in this argument is that it mistakes a necessary condition for a sufficient condition.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The argument actually commits a causal reasoning error (assuming correlation implies causation) rather than a conditional logic error (mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient one). Therefore, the statement describing the flaw is false.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the reasoning in the provided argument.
The argument observes a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, and incorrectly concludes that eating ice cream causes shark attacks.
Identifying the argument's premises and conclusion is the first step in diagnosing its logical vulnerability.
2
Identify the actual logical flaw committed by the argument.
The argument confuses correlation with causation. It ignores the likelihood of a third variable (like warmer weather leading to both more ice cream sales and more people swimming) causing both phenomena.
Knowing the actual flaw allows for an accurate evaluation of the provided statement.
3
Evaluate the statement provided.
The statement claims the flaw is mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. This describes a conditional logic error, not a causal logic error.
Comparing the actual flaw to the stated flaw determines whether the statement is true or false.

Key Concept

Flaw in the Reasoning: Correlation vs. Causation
Question 142Question →

Nutritionist: The new energy bar, PowerBite, consists of 25% pure whey protein, whereas our current best-selling bar, MaxEnergy, consists of only 15% whey protein. Since whey protein is the primary driver of muscle recovery after strenuous workouts, athletes looking to maximize their muscle recovery should immediately switch from eating MaxEnergy bars to eating PowerBite bars.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the nutritionist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: A single MaxEnergy bar weighs three times as much as a single PowerBite bar.

Answer

The option stating that a single MaxEnergy bar weighs three times as much as a single PowerBite bar.
The nutritionist's argument relies on a classic 'percentage versus amount' flaw. The argument assumes that because PowerBite has a higher concentration of protein (25% compared to 15%), it will deliver more total protein to the athlete. However, if a MaxEnergy bar is three times larger than a PowerBite bar, an athlete eating one MaxEnergy bar will consume significantly more total whey protein than they would by eating one PowerBite bar. Because switching to PowerBite would actually decrease their total protein intake, this fact completely undermines the conclusion that switching will maximize recovery.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
Athletes looking to maximize muscle recovery should switch from MaxEnergy to PowerBite.
This is the ultimate recommendation the nutritionist is trying to prove.
2
Identify the premises supporting this conclusion.
PowerBite is 25% protein, MaxEnergy is 15% protein, and protein drives muscle recovery.
These are the facts provided to justify the recommendation.
3
Find the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The nutritionist confuses a proportion (percentage of protein) with an absolute quantity (total grams of protein).
A higher percentage does not guarantee a higher total amount if the overall sizes of the items being compared are different.
4
Select the option that exploits this logical gap.
The option stating MaxEnergy weighs three times as much directly addresses this gap.
If MaxEnergy is three times larger, 15% of its large weight provides more total protein than 25% of PowerBite's small weight, proving athletes would actually get less protein by switching.

Key Concept

Differentiating between proportions/percentages and absolute quantities in arguments.
Estimated Time:1m 0s
Question 143Question →

For each logical argument presented, identify the specific piece of additional evidence that provides the strongest logical support for its main conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Meteorology: Farms in the western valley that employed a new cloud-seeding technique received 20% more rainfall this season than their historical average. Therefore, the cloud-seeding technique effectively increases precipitation.
Workplace Tech: A software company found that programmers using a newly designed ergonomic keyboard write code 15% faster than those using standard keyboards. Thus, the new keyboard design improves coding speed.
Linguistics: A newly discovered 12th-century text from the isolated Mountain Kingdom contains several words adopted from the Coastal Empire's language. This indicates that the Mountain Kingdom engaged in extensive economic trade with the Coastal Empire.
Zoology: Researchers observed that migratory birds resting in the Northern Wetlands have a significantly higher survival rate during their journey than those resting in the Southern Marshes. Therefore, the Northern Wetlands provide a more nutrient-rich food supply.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct pairings align each argument with the evidence that directly resolves its specific logical vulnerability: ruling out alternative weather causes, eliminating selection bias in typists, bridging the conceptual gap to 'trade', and providing a causal mechanism for bird nutrition.
Each correct piece of evidence successfully targets the unstated assumption or vulnerability in its corresponding argument. By either ruling out alternate causes (as in the weather and typing scenarios), bridging a concept shift (in the language scenario), or establishing a clear mechanism (in the bird scenario), the evidence makes each conclusion significantly more likely to be true.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the Meteorology argument to identify its underlying assumption.
The argument assumes a causal relationship between cloud-seeding and increased rain. It requires evidence that a natural weather anomaly didn't cause the increase.
Causal claims based on historical comparisons must rule out alternative concurrent causes.
2
Evaluate the Workplace Tech argument's vulnerability.
The argument claims the keyboard causes faster typing, ignoring that fast typists might self-select the new tool. Evidence of random assignment perfectly addresses this.
Eliminating selection bias is a primary way to strengthen observational causal claims.
3
Assess the leap in the Linguistics argument.
The argument leaps from 'borrowed language' to 'economic trade'. Evidence showing the borrowed words are commerce-related bridges this gap.
When a conclusion introduces a new specific concept (trade) not present in the premise (language), a strengthener must link the two.
4
Identify the causal gap in the Zoology argument.
The argument attributes survival to 'nutrient-rich food' without evidence. Confirming the presence of uniquely nutritious, energy-dense plants in the specific area bolsters this.
Providing factual backing for an assumed mechanism strengthens a causal explanation.

Key Concept

Identifying and resolving logical gaps (alternate causes, selection bias, concept shifts) to strengthen arguments.
Question 144Question →

Match each argument below to the piece of new evidence that most directly weakens its conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Mayor Smith's popularity must be declining because attendance at her town hall meetings is much lower this year.
City roads are more dangerous than rural roads because a significantly larger total number of car accidents happen in the city.
The new gym will be highly profitable because it is opening right next to a busy organic grocery store.
The herbal tea cures insomnia, as all participants in a recent study reported better sleep after drinking it for a week.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Mayor Smith matches to online broadcasts; City roads match to more miles driven; New gym matches to outdoor preference; Herbal tea matches to prescription medication.
Each correct match directly exploits a specific logical flaw in the argument's reasoning. By introducing alternate explanations, distinguishing totals from rates, attacking unwarranted business assumptions, or introducing confounding variables, the new evidence demonstrates that the original conclusions do not necessarily follow from their premises.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument regarding Mayor Smith's popularity.
The argument assumes that low physical attendance at meetings definitively proves low popularity.
Identifying the unstated assumption is the first step to finding a weakness.
2
Find the evidence that provides an alternative reason for the low attendance.
The fact that meetings are now broadcast online explains the low physical attendance without requiring a drop in popularity.
An alternate explanation successfully weakens a correlative claim.
3
Analyze the argument regarding city roads and find the structural flaw.
The argument confuses a high total number of accidents with a higher rate of danger. The evidence that city drivers drive millions more miles addresses this total vs. rate flaw.
Understanding the difference between absolute numbers and proportions is crucial to weakening statistical arguments.
4
Analyze the gym and herbal tea arguments to find their respective weakening evidence.
The gym argument is weakened by evidence that the adjacent store's customers dislike indoor gyms. The tea argument is weakened by the introduction of an alternate cause (prescription medication).
Each piece of correct evidence successfully severs the assumed logical link between the given premises and the final conclusions.

Key Concept

Evaluating Arguments: Weakening
Question 145Question →

City Council Member: Last month, we installed a new, synchronized traffic light system at the Oak Street intersection. This month, the number of traffic accidents at that intersection dropped by 30% compared to the previous month. Therefore, the new traffic light system has clearly improved safety by reducing accidents at the Oak Street intersection.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the city council member's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: During the same month, major roadwork closed the primary highway feeding into the Oak Street intersection, drastically reducing the volume of traffic passing through it.

Answer

The statement regarding major roadwork closing the primary highway and reducing traffic volume.
The argument relies on a flawed causal assumption: because the drop in accidents followed the installation of the traffic lights, the lights must have caused the drop. To weaken a causal argument, you should look for an alternate cause for the observed effect. The correct answer provides a perfect alternate cause: if major roadwork prevented cars from entering the intersection, the number of accidents would naturally decrease, completely independently of the new traffic light system.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the new traffic light system has improved safety by reducing accidents at the Oak Street intersection.
Understanding what the author is trying to prove is the first step in evaluating any argument.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The premise is that a new traffic light system was installed last month, and this month, accidents at that intersection dropped by 30%.
Premises represent the evidence used to justify the conclusion.
3
Analyze the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument assumes a causal relationship based merely on a sequence of events. It assumes no other factors could have caused the 30% drop in accidents.
Finding the assumption or logical flaw reveals how the argument can be weakened.
4
Evaluate the options to find one that exploits this gap.
The option about major roadwork reducing traffic volume provides an alternate cause for the drop in accidents.
An alternate cause severely weakens a causal conclusion by showing the stated effect could have occurred without the stated cause.

Key Concept

Evaluating Causal Arguments and Identifying Alternate Explanations
Question 146Question →

Factory Safety Director: Last year, 85 percent of the reported injuries at our manufacturing plant happened during the morning shift, whereas only 15 percent occurred during the evening shift. It is clear from this data that our morning shift operations are inherently more hazardous than our evening shift operations.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the Factory Safety Director's reasoning?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: fails to consider the comparative number of employees working during each of the two shifts

Answer

The option stating that the argument fails to consider the comparative number of employees working during each of the two shifts.
The correct answer identifies that the Director uses percentages of the total number of injuries to compare the relative danger (hazard level) of two shifts. However, a higher proportion of total injuries does not necessarily mean the shift is more dangerous for an individual worker. If the morning shift employs 1,000 workers and the evening shift employs only 10 workers, the morning shift would naturally have a much larger percentage of the total injuries even if the evening shift is vastly more dangerous per worker. The argument fundamentally confuses proportions of a total with relative rates by failing to account for the population size of each shift.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the premise and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: 85% of total injuries were on the morning shift, 15% on the evening shift. Conclusion: The morning shift is more hazardous.
Breaking down the argument structure is the first step to evaluating its logical validity.
2
Analyze the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion to locate the logical gap.
The argument leaps from a statistic about the share of total injuries (a percentage of the whole) to a conclusion about relative danger (which requires knowing the rate of injury per worker).
Identifying missing information reveals the flaw in the reasoning.
3
Match the gap to standard logical fallacies.
This is a classic 'Percentages vs. Numbers' flaw. If the morning shift has significantly more workers than the evening shift, it would naturally account for a larger percentage of total injuries, even if the actual risk (hazard) to any individual worker is identical or lower.
Recognizing the exact fallacy type allows for accurate prephrasing of the correct answer choice.

Key Concept

Flaw in the Reasoning: Percentages vs. Numbers
Question 147Question →

Linguist: Tarania's indigenous language features a complex tonal system, structurally identical to mainland languages 2,000 miles away, but unlike the non-tonal languages of neighboring islands. Anthropologists argue this tonal system evolved independently due to similar acoustic environments between Tarania and the mainland. However, geological records prove Tarania's environment has always resembled its non-tonal neighbors, not the mainland. Therefore, Tarania's tonal system must have been introduced by ancient mainland settlers who migrated to the island.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the linguist's conclusion?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Fundamental linguistic structures, such as a highly complex tonal system, are universally adopted only through long-term demographic integration and not through temporary contact.

Answer

Fundamental linguistic structures, such as a highly complex tonal system, are universally adopted only through long-term demographic integration and not through temporary contact.
The correct answer strengthens the argument by explicitly ruling out a highly plausible alternative explanation: temporary contact through trade networks. By establishing that such complex linguistic features strictly require long-term demographic integration, it bridges the gap between the observed phenomenon and the author's specific conclusion that settlers permanently migrated.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's core structure (premises and main conclusion).
Premises: The tonal system matches the mainland but not neighbors; it didn't evolve independently via environment because Tarania's environment doesn't match the mainland's. Conclusion: Mainland settlers migrating to Tarania introduced the tonal system.
Understanding the core argument structure is required to isolate the logical gap.
2
Identify the logical gap in the reasoning.
The linguist assumes that ruling out independent environmental evolution leaves permanent migration as the only explanation, ignoring other forms of contact like historical trade.
Strengthening an argument often involves closing unstated gaps or ruling out alternative explanations.
3
Evaluate the options to find one that bridges the gap or rules out an alternative cause.
The option stating that complex tonal systems require long-term demographic integration rather than temporary contact perfectly eliminates the most plausible alternative mechanism (trade).
Ruling out alternative causes directly bolsters the author's proposed causal mechanism.

Key Concept

Ruling out alternative explanations to strengthen a causal claim.
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 148Question →

Historian: In the seventeenth-century town of Oakhaven, merchant records show a sudden surge in the importation of foreign spices immediately following a prolonged period of severe drought. Some scholars argue this indicates that the town's elite significantly increased their wealth during the drought. However, it is more likely that the drought destroyed local herb crops, forcing residents to rely heavily on imported spices for basic food preservation. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the historian's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The foreign spices imported during the period following the drought consisted almost entirely of basic preservatives rather than the rare culinary spices traditionally favored by the wealthy.

Answer

The option stating that the foreign spices imported consisted almost entirely of basic preservatives rather than rare culinary spices.
The correct answer decisively strengthens the historian's argument by providing specific data about the types of spices imported. By confirming that the spices were basic preservatives rather than rare culinary luxuries, it perfectly validates the historian's claim that the imports were for basic food preservation due to crop failure, while simultaneously undermining the scholars' alternative claim that the imports were a display of new elite wealth.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the historian's main conclusion.
The surge in spice imports occurred because the drought destroyed local herbs, forcing residents to use imported spices for basic food preservation.
Understanding the precise claim is necessary to evaluate which piece of evidence best supports it.
2
Identify the opposing alternative explanation presented in the stimulus.
Some scholars argue the surge in imports was caused by the town's elite increasing their wealth and buying luxury goods.
In causal arguments, strengthening often involves ruling out or undermining alternative causes.
3
Evaluate the options to find evidence that supports the historian's specific mechanism over the scholars' alternative.
The correct option shows that the nature of the imported goods (basic preservatives) aligns perfectly with the historian's theory and directly contradicts the scholars' theory (which relies on the assumption of luxury consumption).
Evidence that validates the hypothesized cause-and-effect relationship while ruling out a known alternative provides the most robust support.

Key Concept

Strengthening causal arguments by confirming the mechanism and ruling out alternative explanations.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 149Question →

Argument: A recent study observed that individuals who consume green tea daily are significantly less likely to contract the common cold compared to those who do not drink green tea. The researchers concluded that specific antioxidants in green tea actively strengthen the immune system against cold viruses.

Statement: The new evidence that individuals who drink green tea daily are also much more likely to practice rigorous hand hygiene and avoid crowded places during cold season weakens the researchers' conclusion.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

True
The statement accurately reflects how to weaken a correlation-to-causation argument. By pointing out that the group experiencing fewer colds also engages in behaviors known to prevent illness (hand hygiene, avoiding crowds), the new evidence provides a strong alternate explanation for the outcome. This significantly weakens the researchers' conclusion that green tea was the determining factor.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the original argument to identify the premise and conclusion.
The premise is a correlation between drinking green tea and having fewer colds. The conclusion is that green tea directly causes this reduction in colds.
Understanding the logical structure of the argument is essential for evaluating how new evidence affects it.
2
Examine the new evidence provided in the statement.
The evidence shows that green tea drinkers also share another trait: they practice better hygiene and avoid crowds.
We must understand the content of the new information to assess its logical impact.
3
Evaluate the impact of the new evidence on the argument's conclusion.
The new evidence provides an alternative cause (hygiene) for the effect (fewer colds), which makes the researchers' conclusion about green tea less likely to be the true cause.
Providing an alternate explanation for an observed correlation is a standard and effective method to weaken a causal conclusion.

Key Concept

Weakening a causal argument by providing an alternative explanation for an observed correlation.
Question 150Question →

Linguist: To completely understand a newly discovered language, researchers must be able to accurately translate its idiomatic expressions. However, the idioms of any language are deeply rooted in the unique historical experiences of the culture that speaks it. Since the historical experiences of the recently contacted Zephyrian culture are entirely undocumented and inaccessible to outsiders, researchers will never be able to completely understand the Zephyrian language.

Evaluate whether the following statement is true or false:
The linguist's argument logically depends on the assumption that researchers cannot accurately translate a language's idiomatic expressions without having access to the unique historical experiences of the culture that speaks it.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

True
The correct answer is True. The argument relies on linking the inaccessible history of the Zephyrian culture to the inability to translate its idioms. The unstated bridge is that one actually needs access to that history in order to translate the idioms. Without this, the argument fails.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is: researchers will never be able to completely understand the Zephyrian language.
Locating the conclusion is the first step in evaluating any logical argument.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
Premise 1: Complete understanding requires translating idiomatic expressions. Premise 2: Idioms are deeply rooted in a culture's unique historical experiences. Premise 3: Zephyrian historical experiences are completely undocumented and inaccessible.
Understanding the evidence provided allows us to spot the logical gap.
3
Identify the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument jumps from the fact that idioms are 'rooted in' history to the conclusion that one 'cannot translate' them without access to that history.
A necessary assumption must bridge this gap to make the argument logically valid.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to the proposed assumption.
Negated assumption: Researchers CAN accurately translate idiomatic expressions without having access to the historical experiences. If this is true, the lack of Zephyrian historical records does not prevent translation, and the conclusion that they will never understand the language falls apart.
The Negation Technique definitively proves whether an assumption is logically necessary for the argument.

Key Concept

Necessary Assumption (Bridging the Gap and Negation Technique)
Question 151Question →

Ornithologist: Ten years ago, our city implemented a 'Dark Sky' ordinance to reduce nighttime light pollution, which disorients migrating warblers and causes fatal building collisions. Since then, the population of warblers migrating through the city has continued to decline. Critics claim the ordinance failed to protect the birds. However, this is unwarranted. The continued decline is actually caused by the recent, rapid deforestation of the warblers' southern wintering grounds.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the ornithologist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Populations of bird species that migrate through the city but spend their winters in protected nature reserves have remained stable over the past decade.

Answer

The option stating that populations of bird species migrating through the city but wintering in protected reserves have remained stable.
The correct answer acts as a scientific control group. If the Dark Sky ordinance had failed, all birds migrating through the city would still be declining. By establishing that other bird species migrating through the exact same city are stable because they winter in protected areas, it proves two things simultaneously: the city's ordinance successfully eliminated the local threat, and the lack of protected wintering grounds is the true variable causing the warblers' decline.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The ornithologist concludes that the continued decline in the warbler population is caused by southern deforestation, not by a failure of the city's Dark Sky ordinance.
Understanding the precise claim is required to know what needs strengthening.
2
Analyze the evidence and identify the logical gap.
The evidence shows warbler populations are still declining despite the ordinance. The gap is the assumption that the ordinance actually worked and that an entirely different variable (deforestation) is now solely responsible for the decline.
Strengthening often involves closing the gap by validating the assumption or ruling out alternate explanations.
3
Formulate a strengthening strategy.
Look for an answer choice that acts as a control group: a scenario where the birds experience the city's ordinance but do NOT experience the deforestation.
In causal arguments, demonstrating 'cause without effect' or validating a control group effectively isolates the true causal variable.
4
Evaluate the options against the strategy.
The correct answer shows that birds migrating through the city but wintering elsewhere are doing fine, proving the city is safe and the wintering grounds are the problem.
This directly confirms the ornithologist's defense of the ordinance and indictment of the deforestation.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Arguments via Control Groups
Question 152Question →

Archaeologists recently discovered a high concentration of grinding stones at a 12,000-year-old settlement in the Zaran Valley, predating known agriculture in the region by 2,000 years. Residue analysis of these stones revealed trace amounts of wild cereal grains. Based on this, the lead researcher concluded that the valley's ancient inhabitants systematically processed and stored wild grains as a primary food source long before crop domestication. Which of the following statements, if true, would most strengthen the researcher's argument? Select all that apply.

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Microscopic wear patterns on the discovered grinding stones perfectly match those found on tools used exclusively for daily, high-volume grain processing.; Excavations immediately adjacent to the grinding stones revealed large, subterranean clay-lined pits containing massive concentrations of wild cereal pollen.

Answer

The correct selections are the statement identifying wear patterns indicative of high-volume processing and the statement detailing the discovery of large clay-lined storage pits.
The argument jumps from the mere presence of tools with trace grains to a massive claim about systematic processing, storage, and dietary reliance. The correct answers directly address these leaps. The statement about wear patterns confirms the tools were used heavily and specifically for grains, supporting the 'primary food source' and 'systematic processing' claims. The statement about subterranean pits provides the exact physical evidence needed to validate the 'stored' claim.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The inhabitants systematically processed and stored wild grains as a primary food source.
This is the core claim that must be supported by the correct answer choices.
2
Identify the premises and the logical gap.
Premises: Grinding stones were found, and trace wild grains were on them. Gap: Traces of grain on stones do not guarantee high-volume processing (primary food source) or the existence of storage.
Understanding the gap allows you to find evidence that specifically bridges it.
3
Evaluate each option to see if it independently bridges a critical part of the gap.
The option regarding microscopic wear patterns supports the 'systematic/primary processing' claim. The option regarding clay-lined pits supports the 'storage' claim.
In a multi-select strengthen question, each correct option must independently provide meaningful support to the conclusion.

Key Concept

Identifying and bridging logical gaps in causal or evidentiary arguments.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 153Question →

Economist: To mitigate the economic stagnation caused by our aging workforce, the government recently introduced aggressive tax incentives for corporations that invest in automation technology. Proponents argue this will elevate overall industrial productivity. However, these incentives will actually exacerbate the current economic stagnation. To take advantage of these incentives, corporations will inevitably fund their automation investments by diverting capital away from employee training programs, which are currently the sole driver of productivity growth in our remaining workforce.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the economist's argument depends?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The productivity gains achieved through the implemented automation technology will not fully offset the productivity growth lost by defunding employee training programs.

Answer

The productivity gains achieved through the implemented automation technology will not fully offset the productivity growth lost by defunding employee training programs.
The argument concludes that the tax incentives will exacerbate economic stagnation because corporations will divert funds from training (the sole driver of productivity growth) to automation. For this sequence of events to exacerbate stagnation, the new automation must not produce enough productivity to make up for the lost training. If the automation's productivity gains did fully offset the loss from training (the negation of the correct answer), overall productivity would not decrease, and stagnation would not be exacerbated. Therefore, this assumption is logically necessary.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core argument structure.
Premise: Corporations will divert funds from training (the sole driver of productivity growth) to automation. Conclusion: The tax incentives will exacerbate economic stagnation.
Identifying the premises and main conclusion is required to locate the logical gap.
2
Identify the unstated assumption bridging the premises and conclusion.
The author assumes that replacing the sole driver of productivity growth with automation will result in a net negative outcome for overall productivity.
For the switch to exacerbate stagnation, the new investment (automation) must yield less benefit than what was sacrificed (training).
3
Apply the Negation Test to verify the correct option.
Negation: The automation gains WILL fully offset the lost training productivity. This destroys the conclusion, proving the original statement is a necessary assumption.
The Negation Test definitively proves whether an assumption is logically necessary for the argument to hold.

Key Concept

Identifying Necessary Assumptions via the Negation Test
Question 154Question →

Consider the following argument: 'Every time a new bakery opens in our neighborhood, crime rates drop slightly. Therefore, the smell of fresh bread must be deterring criminals.'

The reasoning in this argument is flawed because it relies on the testimony of an unreliable authority.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The given statement is false because it incorrectly identifies the argument's logical flaw. The argument commits a causal fallacy (confusing correlation with causation) by assuming that because two events happen simultaneously, one causes the other. It does not commit an appeal to authority fallacy, as no authorities or experts are mentioned in the text.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument to identify the premises and the conclusion.
The premise is that bakery openings and crime drops occur together. The conclusion is that the smell of fresh bread deters criminals.
Breaking down the argument is necessary to evaluate the logical link between the evidence and the final claim.
2
Identify the actual logical flaw in the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument incorrectly assumes a causal relationship (bread smell causes lower crime) solely based on a correlation (they happen at the same time).
Recognizing the true logical flaw allows us to evaluate whether the provided statement accurately describes it.
3
Compare the actual flaw to the flaw described in the statement.
The statement claims the flaw is relying on an unreliable authority, but no authority or expert is cited anywhere in the argument.
This comparison determines that the given statement incorrectly categorizes the argument's vulnerability.

Key Concept

Flaw in the Reasoning: Identifying Correlation vs. Causation
Estimated Time:45s
Question 155Question →

Agricultural Scientist: To combat devastating spongy moth infestations in commercial apple orchards, researchers developed a synthetic pheromone that completely masks the natural mating scent of female moths, preventing males from locating them. Although this pheromone degrades rapidly and requires costly weekly applications throughout the breeding season—unlike traditional broad-spectrum chemical pesticides which require only a single, inexpensive annual spray—orchard owners who transition exclusively to the synthetic pheromone will ultimately see higher profit margins.

Which of the following are assumptions on which the agricultural scientist's argument depends? (Select all that apply.)

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The traditional broad-spectrum chemical pesticides do not prevent spongy moth crop damage as effectively as the synthetic pheromone does.; The apple orchards' spongy moth infestations are not primarily sustained by female moths that have already mated in neighboring untreated areas before migrating into the orchards.

Answer

The argument relies on two necessary assumptions: that traditional pesticides are less effective than the pheromone at preventing damage, and that infestations are not primarily caused by already-mated females migrating into the orchards.
Both correct statements bridge critical gaps in the author's reasoning. First, for a more expensive product to generate higher profits, it must offset its costs with superior performance; if traditional pesticides worked just as well, the cheaper option would be more profitable. Second, the pheromone specifically targets the mating process; if the pest population is sustained by insects that have already mated elsewhere, the pheromone's specific mechanism is useless, and the investment is wasted.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the premises and the main conclusion.
Premises: Pheromone stops mating; pheromone is more expensive to apply than traditional pesticide. Conclusion: Transitioning exclusively to the pheromone will yield higher profit margins.
Understanding the gap between the evidence (high cost, stops mating) and the conclusion (higher profit) reveals what must be assumed.
2
Evaluate candidate assumptions using the Negation Test.
Negating the option regarding traditional pesticide effectiveness means traditional pesticides are equally or more effective. Since they are also cheaper, the conclusion of higher profits from the pheromone is destroyed. Negating the option regarding migrating females means already-mated females sustain the infestation. If so, preventing mating locally is useless, destroying the conclusion.
A valid Necessary Assumption must pass the Negation Test: its logical opposite must invalidate the author's argument.
3
Eliminate choices that are too extreme or out of scope.
Options claiming 'absolutely no negative side effects' or introducing 'premium consumer prices' are eliminated because the argument can still survive even if these statements are false.
Necessary assumptions represent the minimum requirements for the argument to function, not statements that just make the conclusion highly likely or better.

Key Concept

Evaluating necessary assumptions by recognizing missing links in economic reasoning and applying the Negation Test to rule out alternate causes of failure.
Question 156Question →

Botanist: To survive in the hyper-arid Atacama Desert, the Copiapoa cactus relies exclusively on regular coastal fog for hydration. However, recent atmospheric warming has permanently shifted this fog condensation layer to significantly higher altitudes, completely bypassing the low-lying valleys where the native Copiapoa populations are rooted. Because these cacti cannot survive for more than a few months without moisture, the only way to prevent the extinction of the Copiapoa in the wild is to artificially relocate the remaining populations to these higher elevations.

Evaluate the following statement: The botanist's argument depends on the assumption that artificially relocating the remaining Copiapoa populations to higher elevations will successfully prevent their extinction in the wild.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The proposed assumption represents a sufficient condition (relocation guarantees survival), whereas the argument's conclusion only establishes relocation as a necessary condition (relocation is the 'only way' to survive). According to the Negation Test, if we assume relocation will NOT guarantee survival, the conclusion that it is the 'only way' to survive remains perfectly intact. Therefore, the argument does not logically depend on this assumption.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's core conclusion.
Conclusion: The only way to prevent the extinction of the Copiapoa in the wild is to artificially relocate the remaining populations to higher elevations.
Isolating the exact logical force of the conclusion is required to determine what the argument relies upon.
2
Analyze the logical parameters of the conclusion.
The phrase 'the only way' establishes relocation as a necessary condition for preventing extinction. It does not establish it as a sufficient condition.
Understanding the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions is critical for evaluating high-level LSAT assumptions.
3
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed assumption in the statement.
Negated assumption: Artificially relocating the populations to higher elevations will NOT successfully prevent their extinction.
A necessary assumption must destroy the core argument when logically negated.
4
Evaluate the impact of the negated assumption on the conclusion.
The negated assumption does not invalidate the conclusion. Relocation can still logically be the 'only way' to prevent extinction, even if it ultimately proves insufficient to save the species.
If negating an assumption leaves the conclusion logically intact, the assumption is not strictly necessary for the argument.

Key Concept

Distinguishing between necessary and sufficient conditions when identifying unstated premises (Negation Test).
Question 157Question →

Philosopher: A genuinely altruistic act requires that the agent act solely for the benefit of another, devoid of any subconscious or conscious anticipation of a personal payoff. Yet, neurological studies demonstrate that when humans assist others in distress, their brains consistently release neurotransmitters that induce a profound sense of psychological well-being. Because humans are neurologically conditioned to expect this internal sensation when performing charitable acts, we must conclude that humans are incapable of genuine altruism.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the philosopher's argument depends?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The internal sensation of psychological well-being induced by neurotransmitter release qualifies as a personal payoff.

Answer

The internal sensation of psychological well-being induced by neurotransmitter release qualifies as a personal payoff.
The argument relies on a subtle shift in terminology. The premises establish that humans expect a 'profound sense of psychological well-being,' but the conclusion claims humans fail the test for altruism because they anticipate a 'personal payoff.' For the conclusion to logically follow, the author must assume that the psychological well-being they expect is, in fact, a form of personal payoff. Logically negating this statement breaks the argument: if the well-being is not a personal payoff, then anticipating it does not disqualify the act from being genuinely altruistic.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the main conclusion and the premises supporting it.
Conclusion: Humans are incapable of genuine altruism. Premises: Altruism requires no anticipation of a personal payoff. Humans are neurologically conditioned to expect psychological well-being when helping others.
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to spot logical gaps between the provided evidence and the final conclusion.
2
Identify the logical gap or concept shift between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises discuss the expectation of 'psychological well-being', but the conclusion relies on the condition of anticipating a 'personal payoff'.
In necessary assumption questions, subtle changes in terminology often indicate the unstated premise that the author is taking for granted.
3
Apply the Negation Test to candidate answers to see which one destroys the argument when logically negated.
Negating the correct statement yields: 'Psychological well-being does NOT qualify as a personal payoff.' If this is true, expecting well-being does not violate the rule against expecting a payoff, and the argument collapses.
The Negation Test is the definitive method for confirming whether an assumption is strictly necessary for the conclusion to follow.

Key Concept

Identifying a bridge assumption that connects the specific evidence provided in the premises to the shifted language of the conclusion.
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 158Question →

Match each of the following arguments regarding a city transit authority's transition to electric buses (Left) with the newly discovered piece of evidence (Right) that most effectively strengthens its specific conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Since the deployment of electric buses on Route 5, daily passenger volume has increased by 15 percent. Commuters must therefore prefer the quieter, smoother ride provided by electric vehicles.
The electric buses have required mechanical servicing far less frequently than the diesel buses they replaced. Thus, electric powertrains are inherently more durable than traditional diesel engines.
Particulate pollution along Route 5 has dropped significantly since the electric fleet began operations. This proves that the retired diesel buses were the primary source of airborne contaminants in the area.
Traffic collisions involving buses on Route 5 have decreased by 30 percent since the transition. Consequently, electric buses must be structurally safer and easier to maneuver in traffic.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The passenger volume argument pairs with the ticket prices evidence; the mechanical servicing argument pairs with the bus age evidence; the pollution argument pairs with the constant traffic emissions evidence; the collision argument pairs with the driver cohort evidence.
In causal reasoning, an argument is logically strengthened when a plausible alternative cause for the observed effect is eliminated. Because all four arguments share the same contextual scenario, surface-level keyword matching is ineffective. Instead, each correct match pairs a specific conclusion with a premise that directly neutralizes its most critical confounding variable.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the passenger volume argument to identify its causal gap.
The argument assumes ride quality caused the ridership increase, ignoring other potential incentives.
Matching it with the evidence that ticket prices and schedules remained unchanged strengthens the claim by ruling out these prominent economic alternatives.
2
Examine the mechanical servicing argument's assumption regarding durability.
The argument assumes engine type, rather than vehicle age, is the reason for reduced maintenance.
Matching it with the evidence that the diesel buses were newer than the electric ones strongly bolsters the claim by showing the electric buses performed better despite an age disadvantage.
3
Evaluate the pollution argument's causal claim.
It assumes the bus switch was the sole reason for improved air quality, ignoring other local factors.
Matching it with the evidence that other emissions remained steady strengthens the argument by isolating the bus fleet as the single variable responsible for the change.
4
Assess the collision reduction argument.
It assumes the vehicles themselves are safer, ignoring the human element of driving.
Matching it with the evidence that the drivers and their training were identical rules out improved human performance as the cause, heavily supporting the vehicle safety conclusion.

Key Concept

Strengthening causal arguments by systematically ruling out alternative explanations and isolating the causal variable.
Question 159Question →

Marine Biologist: The recent severe decline in the local population of tufted puffins is driven by new commercial fishing operations off the coast. The puffin population started dropping sharply three years ago, precisely when these commercial fleets began large-scale harvesting of sand lance, the puffin's primary food source.

Statement: A cessation of the commercial harvesting of sand lance would result in a full recovery of the local tufted puffin population.

The statement above is a necessary assumption of the marine biologist's argument.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False. The statement makes a predictive claim about recovery, which is not required to prove the historical causal claim made in the argument.
The statement is not a necessary assumption because the argument only claims that commercial fishing caused the decline. It does not make any predictions about the future or claim that the damage is reversible. If we negate the statement (asserting that stopping the fishing would NOT result in a full recovery), the argument's conclusion—that fishing was the initial cause—remains perfectly valid. Since the argument survives the Negation Test, the statement is not logically required.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's conclusion and primary premise.
Conclusion: Commercial fishing operations are driving the decline in the tufted puffin population. Premise: The decline coincided exactly with the commercial harvesting of the puffin's food source.
Evaluating an assumption requires isolating the exact gap between the evidence provided and the claim being made.
2
Apply the Negation Test to the proposed statement.
Negated statement: A cessation of the commercial harvesting of sand lance would NOT result in a full recovery of the local tufted puffin population.
The Negation Test determines if an assumption is strictly necessary. If the negated statement destroys the conclusion, it is a necessary assumption.
3
Evaluate whether the negated statement falsifies the conclusion.
The negated statement does not falsify the conclusion. The fishing operations could have caused the decline even if the population cannot recover (e.g., if the damage is irreversible due to critically low breeding numbers).
Because the conclusion remains logically intact even when the statement is false, the statement is not required by the argument.

Key Concept

Necessary assumptions must be strictly required for the conclusion to hold; a causal argument does not inherently assume the reversibility of the effect.
Question 160Question →

Anthropologist: Chemical analysis of obsidian blades found at the ancient inland Xoloti settlement perfectly matches the isotopic signature of the coastal Yuma quarry, located 400 miles away across the barren Sunu Desert. Clearly, the Xoloti must have engaged in direct, long-distance trade expeditions with the coastal Yuma people to obtain this material, rather than acquiring it gradually through a chain of intermediate, shorter trade networks involving other settlements.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the anthropologist's argument? Select all that apply.

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Extensive archaeological excavations have found no Yuma obsidian artifacts at the sites of any known ancient settlements located between Xoloti and the coastal Yuma quarry.; Remains of marine fish, which would have spoiled within days of being caught, were frequently buried alongside the obsidian blades at the Xoloti settlement.

Answer

The correct options are the one noting the absence of obsidian at intermediate settlements and the one describing the presence of highly perishable marine fish at the inland site.
The argument concludes that the obsidian was acquired via direct long-distance expeditions rather than a gradual, intermediate trade network. To strengthen this, we must find evidence that either makes direct expeditions more plausible or makes intermediate trade networks less plausible. The option regarding the lack of artifacts at intermediate sites strengthens the argument by directly undermining the alternative explanation (down-the-line trade). The option regarding perishable marine fish strengthens the argument by showing that transit from the coast was extremely fast, which is consistent with direct expeditions and highly inconsistent with gradual, settlement-to-settlement trade.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion and the premises.
Conclusion: Xoloti acquired obsidian via direct long-distance expeditions, not gradual intermediate networks. Premise: Inland obsidian perfectly matches a coastal quarry 400 miles away.
Understanding the core argument is necessary before evaluating its logical gaps.
2
Identify the core logical gap or vulnerability.
The anthropologist assumes that a 400-mile distance entails direct expeditions, but offers no proof that direct trade is more plausible than a chain of shorter, settlement-to-settlement trades.
Strengthening an argument typically involves bridging its primary logical gap or ruling out alternative explanations.
3
Evaluate options for their impact on the direct vs. intermediate trade hypotheses.
Options that rule out intermediate trade (lack of artifacts at intermediate sites) or require rapid transport (perishable marine fish) support the direct trade conclusion.
Evidence that undermines the alternative cause (gradual trade) directly strengthens the author's preferred cause (direct expeditions).

Key Concept

Strengthening an argument by ruling out alternative explanations and affirming the feasibility of the proposed explanation.
PreviousPage 8 / 15Next
Argument Evaluation Practice Questions — LSAT — Page 8 | Examkin