Examkin

Logical Reasoning

666 questions

All types666Multiple choice343Multiple select54True / False70Matching166Ordering18Fill in the blank10Short answer5
Question 41Question →

Five years ago, a regional freight rail network replaced its legacy mechanical track switches across all primary corridors with solid-state electronic switches. Laboratory testing and field trials established that these electronic switches have a mean time between component malfunctions four times longer than that of the legacy mechanical switches. Nevertheless, railway logs indicate that the total number of freight train delays caused by track-switch malfunctions across these corridors was substantially higher during the five years following the replacement than during the five years preceding it.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: While a mechanical switch malfunction could be temporarily bypassed by train crews in minutes, an electronic switch fault automatically halts all corridor traffic until a specialized technician completes a full diagnostic reboot.

Answer

The statement explaining that electronic switch faults trigger automated corridor-wide shutdowns affecting multiple trains while mechanical faults could be bypassed quickly on-site resolves the paradox.
The correct answer provides an operational asymmetry: mechanical switch failures were localized and bypassed in minutes (delaying at most one train), whereas an electronic failure triggers an automated corridor lockdown that cascades across multiple scheduled trains. Consequently, even with a substantially lower malfunction rate, the multiplier effect of each incident produces a higher total number of delayed trains.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two competing facts in the stimulus.
Fact 1: Electronic switches suffer hardware malfunctions one-fourth as often as mechanical switches. Fact 2: Total freight train delays caused by switch malfunctions rose significantly after installing electronic switches.
Resolving a paradox requires clearly isolating the two seemingly incompatible premises.
2
Analyze the structural gap between the metrics.
The stimulus measures component malfunction frequency on one side and the total number of delayed trains on the other. A single malfunction incident could delay multiple trains if the recovery duration is extensive.
Differentiating between the frequency of an event and the severity or cascading impact of that event is the key logical mechanism.
3
Evaluate the answer choices for a mechanism that bridges both facts.
The finding that electronic switch failures cause protracted network-wide shutdowns affecting multiple successive trains reconciles fewer failure events with a greater aggregate count of train delays.
This allows both premises to remain entirely true without contradiction.

Key Concept

Reconciling incident frequency with cascading impact in paradox resolution
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 42Question →

Three years ago, the city of Oakhaven enacted a steep annual penalty tax on commercial buildings that remain vacant for more than six months. The tax is financially ruinous, strongly motivating landlords to avoid paying it. Today, the total number of vacant commercial buildings in Oakhaven has dropped to nearly zero. Paradoxically, over the same three-year period, the total number of active businesses operating in Oakhaven has sharply declined, and the average cost to rent commercial space has skyrocketed.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Rather than paying the tax or accepting lower rents, many landlords demolished their vacant commercial buildings, as undeveloped land is exempt from the penalty.

Answer

The statement explaining that landlords demolished their vacant commercial buildings to create tax-exempt undeveloped land.
The correct answer provides a single mechanism that perfectly aligns all the facts. By demolishing the buildings to create tax-exempt undeveloped land, the properties are no longer classified as 'vacant commercial buildings', explaining the drop to near-zero vacancy. At the same time, this massive destruction of commercial real estate creates a severe shortage of leasable space. This supply shock explains why rent prices skyrocketed for the remaining buildings, and the overall reduction in physical space explains why the total number of active businesses declined.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the opposing facts in the stimulus.
Fact 1: Vacant commercial buildings dropped to nearly zero. Fact 2: Active businesses sharply declined, and average rent skyrocketed.
Resolving a paradox requires a clear understanding of the seemingly contradictory premises.
2
Analyze the underlying tension between the facts.
Normally, a drop in vacant buildings implies more buildings are occupied by businesses, which should mean an increase in active businesses. Furthermore, more occupied buildings usually indicates a healthy supply, which shouldn't necessarily cause rents to skyrocket while business numbers decline.
Defining the expected logical relationship highlights exactly what the correct answer needs to explain.
3
Evaluate the options for a mechanism that reconciles all facts simultaneously.
The correct answer must explain how vacancy can drop while the supply of leasable space drops (causing high rents) and total businesses drop. The physical destruction of the buildings perfectly accounts for a drop in 'vacant buildings' without adding 'active businesses', while the resulting supply shock explains the rent increase.
The correct option must allow all premises to be true without directly denying any of them.

Key Concept

To resolve a paradox involving rates, numbers, or supply-demand economics, look for an unstated shift in the underlying baseline or total capacity.
Question 43Question →

Clara: High schools should require all students to complete a personal finance course before graduating, as understanding budgeting and credit is essential for adult independence.

David: High schools should not mandate personal finance courses; students already carry too many graduation requirements, and basic financial literacy is more appropriately taught by parents at home.

Statement: Clara and David disagree over whether a personal finance course should be a mandatory graduation requirement in high schools.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

True
The statement correctly describes an explicit point of disagreement between the speakers. Clara advocates for mandating personal finance as a graduation requirement, while David directly opposes making the course mandatory. Because both speakers commit to clear, opposite viewpoints on the proposition, the statement is true.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first speaker's position
Clara explicitly states that high schools should require all students to take a personal finance course prior to graduation.
To identify Clara's commitment regarding the mandatory status of the course.
2
Analyze the second speaker's position
David explicitly states that high schools should not mandate personal finance courses for graduation.
To identify David's commitment regarding the mandatory status of the course.
3
Compare both positions against the given statement
Clara answers 'yes' to mandating the course for graduation, while David answers 'no'. Thus, the statement accurately identifies a point of disagreement.
A point of disagreement requires both parties to take opposing stances on the exact same proposition.

Key Concept

Point of Disagreement Identification
Estimated Time:45s
Question 44Question →

Astrophysicist: Any star cluster that formed in an environment with high stellar density underwent rapid gravitational relaxation during its infancy. Star clusters that undergo rapid gravitational relaxation inevitably expel all of their intermediate-mass black holes through stellar dynamical interactions. The Pyxis cluster currently contains several intermediate-mass black holes. Therefore, the Pyxis cluster must have originated in a region with abundant molecular gas clouds.

The astrophysicist's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Any star cluster that did not originate in a region with abundant molecular gas clouds formed in an environment with high stellar density.

Answer

The assumption that any star cluster that did not originate in a region with abundant molecular gas clouds formed in an environment with high stellar density.
The credited response establishes the conditional rule that not originating in abundant molecular gas clouds implies forming in high stellar density (¬M→H\neg M \rightarrow H). The contrapositive of this statement is that not forming in high stellar density guarantees originating in abundant molecular gas clouds (¬H→M\neg H \rightarrow M). Because the premises prove that the Pyxis cluster did not form in high stellar density (¬H\neg H), this rule rigorously guarantees that Pyxis must have originated in a region with abundant molecular gas clouds.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze and diagram the formal conditional relationships in the premises.
Premise 1: Formed in high stellar density →\rightarrow Rapid gravitational relaxation (H→RH \rightarrow R). Premise 2: Rapid gravitational relaxation →\rightarrow Expel all intermediate-mass black holes (R→No BR \rightarrow \text{No } B). Combining these yields H→R→No BH \rightarrow R \rightarrow \text{No } B, with the contrapositive being: Contains intermediate-mass black holes →\rightarrow Did not undergo rapid gravitational relaxation →\rightarrow Did not form in high stellar density (B→¬R→¬HB \rightarrow \neg R \rightarrow \neg H).
Deconstructing the conditional chain isolates what is already proven from what remains unproven.
2
Evaluate the specific evidence given about the subject and identify the inferential gap.
The Pyxis cluster contains intermediate-mass black holes (BPyxisB_{\text{Pyxis}}), which deductively proves that Pyxis did not form in high stellar density (¬HPyxis\neg H_{\text{Pyxis}}). The conclusion claims that Pyxis originated in a region with abundant molecular gas clouds (MPyxisM_{\text{Pyxis}}). The deductive gap is between ¬HPyxis\neg H_{\text{Pyxis}} and MPyxisM_{\text{Pyxis}}.
A sufficient assumption must provide a conditional rule where the proven fact (¬H\neg H) guarantees the final conclusion (MM).
3
Identify the missing sufficient bridge condition.
We need the rule ¬H→M\neg H \rightarrow M, which is logically equivalent to its contrapositive ¬M→H\neg M \rightarrow H ('If a star cluster did not originate in abundant molecular gas clouds, it formed in high stellar density').
Adding ¬H→M\neg H \rightarrow M to the premise deduction ¬HPyxis\neg H_{\text{Pyxis}} 100% logically forces the conclusion MPyxisM_{\text{Pyxis}}.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption / Conditional Contrapositive Chain
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Question 45Question →

Archivist: Many digital preservationists claim that converting historical paper manuscripts into high-resolution digital scans guarantees the indefinite preservation of the intellectual content in those manuscripts. However, digital storage media degrade rapidly and require periodic format migration across changing hardware architectures. Because most archival institutions lack the continuous funding required for perpetual data refreshing and system upgrades, many digitized collections will inevitably become unreadable within a few decades. Therefore, digital scanning cannot be considered a reliable guarantee of the long-term preservation of archival content.

Which of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the archivist's argument?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Digital scanning does not provide a dependable guarantee that archival content will be preserved over the long term.

Answer

Digital scanning does not provide a dependable guarantee that archival content will be preserved over the long term.
The author provides factual premises about media degradation and financial realities to establish that digitized collections will become unreadable, which directly supports the ultimate claim introduced by the conclusion indicator 'Therefore': digital scanning cannot be considered a reliable guarantee of long-term archival preservation.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the rhetorical structure of the stimulus to separate context, premises, intermediate conclusions, and the final deduction.
The archivist introduces a common belief (digital scanning ensures indefinite preservation), introduces factual premises regarding digital degradation and institutional financial limitations, deduces a subsidiary point (collections will become unreadable), and finishes with the main point introduced by 'Therefore'.
Accurate argument deconstruction is essential to avoid mistaking subsidiary claims for the ultimate conclusion.
2
Apply the 'Why?' test between the candidate conclusion statements to verify direction of support.
Digital scanning is not a reliable guarantee (Main Conclusion) BECAUSE collections will become unreadable without perpetual funding (Intermediate Conclusion). The relationship does not work in reverse.
The main conclusion is supported by other statements in the stimulus and does not itself serve to support any further claim.
3
Match the identified main conclusion to the corresponding answer choice.
The choice stating that digital scanning does not provide a dependable guarantee of long-term preservation matches the author's final claim precisely.
The correct response must be an accurate, unembellished paraphrase of the ultimate conclusion.

Key Concept

Distinguishing the Main Conclusion from Intermediate Conclusions and Premises
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Question 46Question →

City council member: Building a new municipal light rail line will significantly reduce downtown traffic congestion. Past transportation studies demonstrate that dedicated rail corridors attract commuters away from single-occupancy vehicles. Therefore, the city council should approve funding for the light rail project.

Which of the following best describes the role played in the argument by the claim that building a new municipal light rail line will significantly reduce downtown traffic congestion?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: It is an intermediate conclusion drawn to support the argument's ultimate recommendation.

Answer

The statement functions as an intermediate conclusion supported by evidence about commuter behavior and used to justify the final policy recommendation.
The correct description identifies the statement as an intermediate conclusion. The council member supports the statement using data from past transportation studies, and then uses that statement as the primary justification for the final recommendation that the council should approve project funding.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion and the overall purpose of the argument.
The final sentence contains the conclusion indicator 'Therefore' and states the main recommendation: 'the city council should approve funding for the light rail project.'
Determining the main conclusion provides the reference point for assessing how other statements relate structurally to the final claim.
2
Examine the relationship between the target claim and the supporting evidence.
The claim that the rail line will reduce congestion is directly supported by the premise that dedicated rail corridors attract commuters away from single-occupancy vehicles.
Because the targeted statement receives logical support from evidence within the stimulus, it functions as a conclusion.
3
Determine whether the target claim also provides support to another claim.
The reduction in traffic congestion serves as the primary rationale for why the council ought to approve funding.
A claim that is both supported by premises and used to support the final conclusion is, by definition, an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.

Key Concept

Distinguishing intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions from main conclusions and basic premises in multi-step arguments.
Question 47Question →

Assess the four argumentative excerpts below, each of which contains a distinct logical flaw. Which abstract description most accurately identifies the primary reasoning vulnerability in each argument? Match each flawed excerpt with its corresponding flaw description.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Chief Medical Administrator: Every individual department within our regional healthcare network successfully operated under its allocated budget this fiscal year. Therefore, the regional healthcare network as an aggregate organization cannot have incurred any net budgetary deficit this year.
Marine Biologist: Humpback whales produce low-frequency feeding vocalizations only when a dense aggregation of prey fish is present within their acoustic range. Hydrophone arrays have confirmed that a dense aggregation of prey fish is currently present within the pod's acoustic range; consequently, the pod will definitely produce low-frequency feeding vocalizations.
Forensic Auditor: The opposing consultant argues that the electronic transaction logs were deliberately altered via an automated script. However, that consultant has received honoraria from financial competitors of the transaction processor. We must therefore conclude that the transaction logs were authentic.
Urban Microclimate Specialist: To mitigate extreme ambient temperatures in the central commercial district, the municipal board must either resurface all thoroughfares with high-albedo coatings or mandate vegetative green roofs across all commercial properties. Because commercial property groups have blocked the green roof mandate, the board must resurface all thoroughfares with high-albedo coatings.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The argument regarding the regional healthcare network matches the description of inferring a whole possesses a characteristic of its parts; the humpback whale argument matches the description of treating a necessary condition as sufficient; the forensic audit argument matches the description of rejecting an assertion by targeting personal incentives; and the urban microclimate argument matches the description of assuming only two courses of action exist.
Each argument contains a distinct, classic reasoning error that aligns with exactly one abstract flaw description: the healthcare excerpt commits a part-to-whole error (composition); the whale vocalization excerpt commits a necessary/sufficient conditional error; the audit excerpt commits an ad hominem source dismissal; and the urban microclimate excerpt commits a false dilemma.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structural gap in the healthcare administration excerpt.
The premise attributes budgetary compliance to each distinct department (parts), while the conclusion attributes freedom from deficit to the combined network (whole).
This isolates the classical error of composition (part-to-whole inference).
2
Analyze the conditional logic in the marine biology excerpt.
The indicator 'only when' sets prey presence as a necessary condition (Vocalizations -> Prey). The premise affirms prey presence and improperly infers that vocalizations must occur.
This isolates the error of mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition.
3
Analyze the rebuttal strategy in the forensic auditing excerpt.
The author attacks the consultant's background (honoraria from competitors) to deduce that the consultant's factual claim is false and the logs are authentic.
This isolates a source/ad hominem flaw.
4
Analyze the policy framework in the urban microclimate excerpt.
The author constructs an 'either/or' premise without establishing exhaustive exclusivity, concluding that eliminating one policy forces the adoption of the other.
This isolates a false dilemma/false dichotomy flaw.

Key Concept

Identification and Classification of Reasoning Vulnerabilities
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 48Question →

Archaeologist: A recently translated archive of clay tablets from the ancient city of Kesh details all raw metal shipments received over a decade. The proportion of raw tin to copper recorded in these logs is significantly lower than the high proportion of tin found in the ornate bronze artifacts excavated from the city's contemporaneous elite tombs. This discrepancy indicates that the bronze items buried with the elite were likely imported as finished luxury goods rather than locally smelted from Kesh's raw material shipments.

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

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Raw tin was extraordinarily expensive and was exclusively reserved by Kesh artisans for smelting the specialized items destined for the elite class, whereas copper was used abundantly for common tools.

Answer

The statement regarding tin being exclusively reserved for elite items while copper was used broadly for common tools.
The argument relies on a flawed statistical assumption: that the composition of a specific subset of goods (elite tomb artifacts) must perfectly match the aggregate composition of all raw materials entering the city. The correct answer destroys this assumption by showing that distribution was heavily skewed. If artisans used the abundant copper for everyday tools but reserved the rare, expensive tin almost entirely for elite items, then local artisans could easily produce high-tin bronze for the elite. This perfectly bridges the gap between the low-tin trade records and the high-tin artifacts, proving that local smelting is a viable explanation and weakening the conclusion that the items had to be imported.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The bronze items buried with the elite were imported as finished goods rather than locally smelted.
This is the author's main claim based on the discrepancy presented in the premises.
2
Identify the premises supporting the conclusion.
The proportion of tin to copper in raw shipments (overall imports) is significantly lower than the proportion of tin found in the elite bronze artifacts.
The author uses this mismatch in proportions as the sole evidence for the conclusion.
3
Identify the unstated assumption linking the premise to the conclusion.
The argument assumes that any bronze smelted locally in Kesh would necessarily reflect the aggregate tin-to-copper ratio of the city's total raw metal shipments.
For the premise to prove the conclusion, the overall average of raw materials must dictate the composition of all individual local products.
4
Find the option that attacks this assumption.
The correct answer shows that the aggregate ratio does not dictate the specific ratio of elite goods, because tin was disproportionately concentrated into items made for the elite.
If local artisans concentrated the limited tin into a few elite items, the elite items would have a high tin ratio despite the city's overall low tin imports, destroying the author's logic.

Key Concept

Identifying Flaws in Generalization / Part-to-Whole Fallacy
Question 49Question →

Each of the following arguments contains an inferential gap between its premises and its conclusion. Match each incomplete argument on the left with the assumption on the right that, if added as an additional premise, is logically sufficient to make the argument's conclusion follow with absolute deductive certainty.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Argument 1: Any neural architecture that operates strictly via predictive coding generates sensory predictions prior to receiving peripheral input. Architecture Gamma operates strictly via predictive coding. Therefore, Architecture Gamma cannot produce unmediated representations of external reality.
Argument 2: Any jurisdiction that eliminates statutory damages for trade secret misappropriation experiences a decrease in proprietary patent filings. Jurisdiction Delta has not experienced a decrease in proprietary patent filings. Hence, Jurisdiction Delta has maintained high levels of domestic research and development expenditure.
Argument 3: No oceanic ecosystem subject to severe ocean acidification maintains baseline calcification rates in hermatypic corals. The Pelican Reef ecosystem has maintained baseline calcification rates in hermatypic corals. Consequently, the Pelican Reef ecosystem was not exposed to anthropogenic atmospheric carbon spikes.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Argument 1 matches with the premise that systems generating sensory predictions prior to peripheral input cannot produce unmediated representations; Argument 2 matches with the premise that jurisdictions not eliminating statutory damages maintain high domestic R&D expenditure; Argument 3 matches with the premise that ecosystems exposed to anthropogenic carbon spikes are subject to severe ocean acidification.
Each match correctly identifies the universal conditional statement that closes the deductive gap in the argument. The predictive coding argument requires a bridge from prior prediction generation to representational mediation. The patent filing argument requires a bridge from non-elimination of statutory damages to sustained research and development expenditure. The coral reef argument requires a conditional statement whose contrapositive connects the lack of severe ocean acidification to the absence of carbon spike exposure.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Isolate the intermediate deductive facts established by the premises of each argument.
Argument 1 yields 'Architecture Gamma generates predictions prior to input'; Argument 2 yields via modus tollens 'Jurisdiction Delta has not eliminated statutory damages'; Argument 3 yields via modus tollens 'Pelican Reef is not subject to severe ocean acidification'.
Identifying the precise intermediate conclusions isolates the remaining deductive gap between the premises and the stated conclusion.
2
Formulate the conditional rule required to bridge each intermediate fact to its target conclusion.
For Argument 1, a rule linking 'generates predictions prior to input' to 'cannot produce unmediated representations' is required. For Argument 2, a rule linking '~eliminates statutory damages' to 'maintains high R&D' is required. For Argument 3, a conditional statement whose contrapositive links '~severe ocean acidification' to '~exposed to carbon spikes' is required.
A sufficient assumption must form an unbroken formal conditional chain that guarantees the conclusion without logical defect.
3
Match each argument with its corresponding universal conditional bridge.
Argument 1 pairs with the unmediated representation rule; Argument 2 pairs with the statutory damages to R&D rule; Argument 3 pairs with the carbon spikes to acidification rule.
Each selected assumption supplies 100% deductive sufficiency.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption in Formal Conditional Logic
Estimated Time:2m 30s
Question 50Question →

Cognitive Scientist: Proponents of the cognitive reserve hypothesis contend that engaging in complex mental activities in late adulthood directly prevents neurodegeneration. To support this, they cite studies showing that elderly individuals who regularly solve complex puzzles or learn foreign languages exhibit significantly lower rates of cortical atrophy. However, this argument overlooks an alternative explanation: individuals with higher innate neural plasticity are both naturally drawn to intellectually demanding tasks and inherently resistant to age-related tissue degradation. Thus, the observed correlation does not establish that the mental activities themselves confer protection against neurodegeneration.

Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning employed by the cognitive scientist?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Undermining a causal inference by proposing a common underlying factor that accounts for both the purported cause and the observed effect

Answer

The cognitive scientist's argument proceeds by undermining a causal inference by proposing a common underlying factor that accounts for both the purported cause and the observed effect.
The correct answer accurately characterizes the author's logical strategy: the proponents observe a correlation between mental activity (purported cause) and reduced atrophy (observed effect) and conclude that the former causes the latter. The author counters by introducing a third variable—innate neural plasticity—that causes both phenomena, thereby demonstrating that the observed correlation does not prove the proponents' causal claim.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the opponent's argument and the author's main conclusion.
Proponents infer a causal link (mental activities prevent neurodegeneration) from an observed correlation (puzzle-solving correlates with lower atrophy). The author concludes that this correlation does not prove the causal link.
Identifying the conclusion and opposing position is the first step in analyzing the method of reasoning.
2
Evaluate the evidence and mechanism introduced by the author.
The author introduces a third factor—innate neural plasticity—which simultaneously explains why certain individuals engage in mental tasks and why those same individuals experience less atrophy.
This establishes the logical function of the author's counter-premise as an alternative causal explanation (common cause / confounder).
3
Match the argument's technique to the abstract structural description.
The technique is a classic refutation of a causal claim by demonstrating that a common underlying cause can account for both the supposed cause and the effect.
The correct description must accurately reflect this causal critique without adding unstated logical fallacies or extreme claims.

Key Concept

Method of Reasoning: Causal Refutation via Common Underlying Cause
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 51Question →

Marit: Electric utility providers should be legally barred from remotely adjusting residential smart thermostats during periods of peak power demand. Consumers purchase these devices under the reasonable expectation of personal autonomy over their domestic environment, and overriding consumer settings without real-time affirmative consent constitutes an unacceptable infringement on consumer liberty, regardless of any subsequent billing credits provided.

Corin: Utility infrastructure operates as an interdependent communal network. When extreme weather events precipitate severe capacity deficits that threaten catastrophic regional blackouts, utility operators must possess the legal authority to enact mandatory, temporary thermostat adjustments. Safeguarding the reliability of the entire electrical grid takes precedence over individual preferences regarding immediate indoor climate control.

Statement: Marit and Corin disagree over whether preserving power grid stability during severe capacity deficits justifies utility providers remotely adjusting residential thermostats without consumer consent.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: True

Answer

True
The evaluation of True is correct because Marit and Corin commit to diametrically opposed truth values regarding the stated proposition. Marit affirms that individual autonomy prohibits non-consensual remote adjustments during peak demand periods regardless of external circumstances, while Corin explicitly argues that severe grid threats supersede individual preference and grant operators the authority to enact such adjustments.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first speaker's explicit premise and conclusion
Marit establishes a strict principle that remote thermostat adjustments by utilities without affirmative consent violate personal liberty and should be prohibited, even when compensation is provided during peak demand.
Identifying the first speaker's scope of commitment establishes the benchmark for potential points of disagreement.
2
Analyze the second speaker's explicit premise and conclusion
Corin asserts that communal grid reliability during emergency capacity shortfalls outweighs individual domestic preferences, granting utilities the necessity and authority to mandate temporary adjustments.
Determining the second speaker's stance reveals whether they directly engage with or bypass the first speaker's principle.
3
Apply the two-speaker test to the proposed statement
Marit would answer 'No' (grid stability cannot justify non-consensual curtailment) while Corin would answer 'Yes' (grid stability does justify mandatory curtailment).
A valid point of disagreement requires one speaker to affirm the proposition while the other speaker explicitly denies it.

Key Concept

Identifying a Point of Disagreement via the Two-Speaker Test
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 52Question →

Match each incomplete logical argument with the missing bridge premise that, if assumed, logically guarantees the truth of its conclusion.

Click a left item, then click its matching right item

Items

Glaciology Argument:
Premise: Every polar ice core segment exhibiting elevated methanesulfonic acid concentration was deposited during an epoch of expanded sea ice cover.
Conclusion: Therefore, Core Sample V-9V\text{-}9 was deposited during a period of sustained marine phytoplankton proliferation.
Admiralty Jurisprudence Argument:
Premise: No maritime vessel seized outside territorial waters is subject to domestic prize court jurisdiction unless the seizing state maintained an active naval blockade at the time of interdiction.
Conclusion: Therefore, the merchant vessel Aurelia is not subject to domestic prize court jurisdiction.
Mantle Petrology Argument:
Premise: Any mantle xenolith containing coesite inclusions underwent ultrahigh-pressure metamorphism exceeding three gigapascals.
Conclusion: Therefore, Rock Specimen X-42X\text{-}42 originated at a subduction depth greater than ninety kilometers.

Matches

Show answer & explanation

Answer

Glaciology Argument pairs with the premise supplying Core Sample V-9V\text{-}9's elevated methanesulfonic acid concentration and linking expanded sea ice cover to phytoplankton proliferation; Admiralty Jurisprudence Argument pairs with the premise establishing that the merchant vessel Aurelia was seized outside territorial waters without an active blockade; Mantle Petrology Argument pairs with the premise establishing Rock Specimen X-42X\text{-}42's coesite content and linking pressures over three gigapascals to depths over ninety kilometers.
Each matched premise provides the exact missing factual instantiation and conditional link needed to form an unbroken deductive syllogism (Premise + Assumption ⇒\Rightarrow Conclusion).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Isolate the inferential gap in the glaciology argument
Identified that Core Sample V-9V\text{-}9 must possess the initial condition (elevated methanesulfonic acid) and that expanded sea ice must guarantee phytoplankton proliferation.
Sufficient assumptions must close all conditional leaps from premises to conclusion.
2
Isolate the inferential gap in the admiralty jurisprudence argument
Recognized the conditional rule: jurisdiction requires territorial waters OR an active naval blockade; the contrapositive requires outside waters AND no active blockade to reach no jurisdiction.
The conclusion claims non-jurisdiction, which requires satisfying both negated necessary conditions.
3
Isolate the inferential gap in the mantle petrology argument
Linked the initial premise condition (coesite inclusions) to the intermediate stage (>3 GPa>3\text{ GPa}) and bridged that to the conclusion (>90 km>90\text{ km}).
A complete deductive chain requires instantiation of the subject and a universal conditional bridge from intermediate to final property.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption deductive bridge completion
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 53Question →

Leona: Pharmaceutical corporations that develop commercial therapies based on biochemical compounds discovered in organisms inhabiting deep-sea hydrothermal vents in international waters should be legally mandated to pay royalties into an international ocean conservation trust. Because the genetic adaptations of organisms residing in international waters constitute a shared global commons, any commercial profit derived from those biological discoveries entails a reciprocal obligation to fund the preservation of those fragile habitats.

Marcus: Preserving marine habitats is certainly vital, and any enterprise that physically extracts biomass or causes direct ecological disruption to hydrothermal vent ecosystems should be heavily taxed. However, pharmaceutical companies synthesize these therapeutic compounds entirely in terrestrial laboratories using digitized genomic sequence data and standard chemical manufacturing. Because the production of synthetic compounds consumes no physical marine biomass, companies marketing purely synthetic derivatives have no obligation to contribute commercial profits to an ocean conservation trust.

The dialogue most strongly supports the claim that Leona and Marcus disagree over which one of the following?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: whether pharmaceutical companies should be required to contribute profits to a conservation trust when marketing purely synthetic compounds derived from deep-sea organisms

Answer

The statement expressing whether pharmaceutical companies should be required to contribute profits to a conservation trust when marketing purely synthetic compounds derived from deep-sea organisms.
The correct answer accurately isolates the specific condition under dispute: whether the obligation to contribute profits to an ocean conservation fund applies to purely laboratory-synthesized compounds derived from deep-sea organisms. The first speaker claims that any commercial profit derived from deep-sea biological discoveries entails this obligation, whereas the second speaker argues that because synthetic production consumes no physical biomass, companies producing purely synthetic derivatives have no such obligation.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first speaker's argument and commit their stance to a clear proposition.
The first speaker contends that commercializing drugs based on biological discoveries from international marine commons incurs a legal duty to pay royalties into an ocean conservation trust, regardless of whether the final product is synthetic.
Establishing the precise scope of the first speaker's claim allows direct comparison with the second speaker's counterargument.
2
Analyze the second speaker's argument and identify concessions versus explicit objections.
The second speaker concedes that direct physical extraction should be taxed, but explicitly denies that companies marketing purely lab-synthesized derivatives without physical biomass consumption have any obligation to pay royalties.
Disagreements on Point at Issue questions require isolating where the two speakers take mutually contradictory stances.
3
Apply the Two-Speaker Test to evaluate candidate propositions.
On the question of whether marketing purely synthetic derivatives derived from deep-sea discoveries warrants mandatory conservation payments, the first speaker says 'yes' and the second speaker says 'no'.
A valid Point at Issue answer must produce opposing truth commitments from both speakers.

Key Concept

Identifying Points of Disagreement via the Two-Speaker Test
Question 54Question →

Consider the following argument:

Geochemist: Some paleoclimatologists claim that the abrupt hemispheric cooling event 8,200 years ago was triggered entirely by a catastrophic flood from glacial Lake Agassiz into the North Atlantic, which supposedly disrupted thermohaline circulation. However, recent isotopic analyses of marine sediment cores indicate that thermohaline circulation had already decelerated markedly two centuries before this glacial flood occurred. Moreover, hydrodynamic modeling demonstrates that a freshwater influx of that magnitude could only suppress circulation if ocean stratification was already destabilized. Therefore, the catastrophic drainage was an accelerating catalyst rather than the primary initiator of the cooling period.

Arrange the following structural stages in the exact order in which they appear and function in the geochemist's argument, beginning with the opposing claim and ending with the final conclusion.

Drag items to arrange them in the correct order

Show answer & explanation

Answer

The correct logical sequence begins with the identification of the opposing causal claim, follows with the empirical chronological evidence and theoretical modeling, and concludes with the qualified judgment regarding the flood's secondary role.
The argument follows a classical refutational structure: it first states the opposing single-factor causal hypothesis, presents an empirical chronological contradiction, reinforces this with theoretical modeling demonstrating causal insufficiency, and finishes with a revised conclusion qualifying the event as an accelerating factor rather than the primary cause.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the opening statement of the stimulus to identify the target position being evaluated.
The argument opens by characterizing the rival hypothesis that the cooling event was triggered entirely by a catastrophic flood.
In refutational method of reasoning, the target claim must be established before counter-evidence can be deployed against it.
2
Examine the empirical finding introduced immediately following the contrastive transition.
The author introduces sediment core data showing that circulation had already slowed two centuries prior to the flood.
This constitutes the primary empirical premise demonstrating that the proposed cause did not precede the onset of the effect.
3
Evaluate the supplementary evidence introduced by the additive transition.
Hydrodynamic modeling is cited to show that the freshwater pulse alone could not cause the disruption without pre-existing stratification.
This supplies a second, theoretical premise establishing the mechanistic insufficiency of the rival claim.
4
Identify the overarching claim indicated by the conclusion marker.
The author concludes that the drainage was an accelerating catalyst rather than the primary initiator.
The conclusion unifies both refutational premises into a modified assessment of the flood's true causal significance.

Key Concept

Identifying the functional progression of premises, intermediate considerations, and main conclusions in a refutational argument.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 55Question →

Urban planners for the city of Oakhaven have established the following zoning regulations and observations: Any residential parcel zoned for high-density development must be located within 500 meters of a rapid transit station. Furthermore, if a parcel is located within 500 meters of a rapid transit station and is also zoned for commercial mixed-use, it automatically qualifies for a parking minimum exemption. Currently, no parcels zoned for high-density development qualify for a parking minimum exemption. Finally, most parcels zoned for commercial mixed-use in the downtown district are located within 500 meters of a rapid transit station.

Based on the information above, which of the following statements must be true? (Select all that apply)

Select all that apply

Show answer & explanation

Answer: No residential parcel zoned for high-density development is also zoned for commercial mixed-use.; At least some parcels located within 500 meters of a rapid transit station are not zoned for high-density development.

Answer

The statements that must be true are that no high-density parcel is commercial mixed-use, and that some transit-adjacent parcels are not high-density.
The correct statements reflect logical certainties derived directly from the text. First, because high-density parcels must be near transit, making them commercial mixed-use would trigger an exemption they explicitly do not have; thus, they cannot be commercial mixed-use. Second, because most downtown commercial mixed-use parcels are near transit, and we know they cannot be high-density, it guarantees that at least some transit-adjacent parcels are not high-density.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Map the formal logic conditionals from the stimulus.
1: High-Density (HD) -> Near Transit (NT). 2: (NT + Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU)) -> Exemption (E). 3: HD -> ~E. 4: Downtown CMU -most-> NT.
Mapping the premises allows for precise deduction without relying on outside assumptions.
2
Combine premises 1, 2, and 3 to find overlapping conditions.
If a parcel is HD, it is NT. If it were also CMU, it would be NT + CMU, triggering E. But premise 3 says HD -> ~E.
Testing intersection of categories reveals impossible combinations.
3
Deduce the relationship between HD and CMU.
Because being both HD and CMU leads to a contradiction (qualifying for E and not qualifying for E), a parcel cannot be both. Thus, No HD is CMU.
Resolving the contradiction establishes the first objectively true statement.
4
Apply the new deduction to the proportional premise (premise 4).
Since Downtown CMU -most-> NT, there is at least one (in fact, many) NT parcel that is CMU. Since no CMU is HD, these specific NT parcels are not HD.
Combining a 'most' statement with a negative absolute statement yields a 'some are not' deduction.

Key Concept

Conditional Logic Chaining and Quantifier Intersections
Estimated Time:3m 0s
Question 56Question →

Agricultural Scientist: Any commercial crop that requires continuous subsoil moisture during germination will suffer widespread yield failure when planted in arid regions lacking automated irrigation infrastructure. Field trials demonstrate that the newly bred sorghum variety S-29 does not suffer widespread yield failure when planted in arid regions lacking automated irrigation infrastructure. Thus, sorghum variety S-29 is well suited for cultivation by dryland subsistence farmers.

The agricultural scientist's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Any commercial crop that does not require continuous subsoil moisture during germination is well suited for cultivation by dryland subsistence farmers.

Answer

Any commercial crop that does not require continuous subsoil moisture during germination is well suited for cultivation by dryland subsistence farmers.
The argument provides a conditional premise: requiring continuous subsoil moisture leads to widespread yield failure in non-irrigated arid regions. Since sorghum variety S-29 does not suffer widespread yield failure in these regions, the contrapositive establishes that variety S-29 does not require continuous subsoil moisture during germination. The correct answer provides the exact universal premise needed to complete the syllogism: if any crop that does not require continuous subsoil moisture is well suited for cultivation by dryland subsistence farmers, then sorghum variety S-29 must be well suited for cultivation by those farmers.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the premises and identify any intermediate deductive inferences.
Premise 1 states that requiring continuous subsoil moisture during germination guarantees widespread yield failure in non-irrigated arid regions. Premise 2 states that sorghum variety S-29 does not suffer widespread yield failure in non-irrigated arid regions. By contrapositive, sorghum variety S-29 does not require continuous subsoil moisture during germination.
Deconstructing the formal logic reveals what has already been proven versus what remains unproven.
2
Identify the logical gap between the intermediate deduction and the conclusion.
The intermediate deduction establishes that sorghum variety S-29 lacks the requirement for continuous subsoil moisture, but the conclusion claims it is well suited for cultivation by dryland subsistence farmers.
A sufficient assumption must provide a 100% airtight bridge linking the established trait to the new term in the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the answer choices for a sufficient conditional bridge.
The statement specifying that any commercial crop not requiring continuous subsoil moisture during germination is well suited for cultivation by dryland subsistence farmers connects the intermediate fact directly to the conclusion.
Connecting 'no requirement for continuous subsoil moisture' to 'well suited for cultivation by dryland subsistence farmers' deductively guarantees the conclusion.

Key Concept

Sufficient Assumption Deductive Linkage
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Question 57Question →

Elena: Museum conservators tasked with preserving time-based digital artwork should prioritize migrating software code to modern programming standards rather than relying on legacy hardware emulation. Code migration ensures that digital artworks remain universally accessible across evolving computing platforms without being tethered to aging, obsolete circuitry.

Marcus: While legacy hardware certainly deteriorates over time, migrating software code inevitably alters the visual latency, rendering artifacts, and timing quirks that define the original work. Preserving the genuine aesthetic integrity of a digital piece requires executing the original code within hardware emulators that precisely mimic vintage system behaviors, even if this approach makes broad cross-platform access more challenging.

Elena's and Marcus's statements provide the strongest support for holding that they disagree on which of the following?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: Digital art conservators should prioritize code migration over emulation of vintage computing environments.

Answer

The statement identifying whether conservators should prioritize code migration over legacy emulation correctly captures the point of disagreement.
The correct answer accurately isolates the direct normative disagreement between the two speakers. Elena explicitly argues that conservators should favor migrating software code over emulation in order to secure broad platform accessibility. Marcus directly challenges this priority, asserting that emulation is necessary to maintain aesthetic fidelity despite the accessibility trade-off. Because one speaker says 'yes' and the other says 'no' to this exact policy choice, it passes the point-at-issue test.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Elena's argument and determine her explicit commitments.
Elena asserts that digital art conservators should prioritize migrating code to modern standards over hardware emulation because migration guarantees universal accessibility.
Establishing Speaker 1's position is necessary to apply the two-speaker disagreement test.
2
Analyze Marcus's argument and determine his explicit commitments.
Marcus argues against prioritizing code migration because it compromises aesthetic quirks, maintaining instead that conservators must use hardware emulation to preserve genuine aesthetic integrity.
Establishing Speaker 2's position allows identification of direct theoretical conflict.
3
Evaluate the answer choices against both speakers' explicit stances.
The proposition regarding whether conservators should prioritize code migration over emulation yields an explicit 'Yes' from Elena and an explicit 'No' from Marcus.
A valid point at issue must produce clear opposing truth values from both speakers.

Key Concept

Applying the Two-Speaker Disagreement Test to Identify Conflicting Prescriptive Claims
Estimated Time:1m 15s
Question 58Question →

Ecologist: Many botanists assume that the volatile chemical compounds emitted by acacia trees upon being grazed by herbivores serve strictly as distress signals to warn neighboring trees. However, these airborne compounds diffuse rapidly and unpredictably over distances beyond two meters. Thus, neighboring trees rarely receive high enough concentrations to trigger preventive defense responses. The emissions cannot have evolved primarily as communicative alarms for conspecifics; rather, their primary evolutionary function must be the direct localized repulsion of the feeding herbivores themselves.

Which of the following best describes the role played in the ecologist's argument by the statement that neighboring trees rarely receive high enough concentrations to trigger preventive defense responses?

Show answer & explanation

Answer: It is a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding compound dispersion and used to support the argument's final conclusion.

Answer

The statement functions as a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding compound dispersion and used to support the argument's final conclusion.
The ecologist establishes that volatile compounds diffuse rapidly beyond two meters, and from this premise derives the claim that neighboring trees rarely receive high enough concentrations to trigger defense responses (introduced by 'Thus'). This derived claim is then utilized as evidence to reject the alarm hypothesis and support the ultimate conclusion that the compounds function primarily to repel herbivores directly. Therefore, the statement operates as an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structural breakdown of the stimulus
Identified opposing view (emissions serve as warnings), premise (compounds diffuse rapidly beyond two meters), targeted statement (neighboring trees rarely receive sufficient concentrations), intermediate deduction (emissions did not evolve as alarms), and main conclusion (primary function is localized herbivore repulsion).
Deconstructing the argument into premises, sub-conclusions, and the ultimate conclusion is essential to determining the functional relationship between components.
2
Evaluate the structural relationship of the targeted statement to preceding and succeeding claims
The targeted statement is derived from the observation of rapid compound diffusion ('Thus...') and acts as a premise supporting the rejection of the communicative alarm hypothesis, which in turn leads to the main conclusion.
A claim that receives inferential support while simultaneously lending support to subsequent claims functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
3
Match the identified structural function to the abstract descriptions in the options
The choice describing the statement as a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding compound dispersion and used to support the final conclusion accurately captures this two-way logical role.
Role in argument questions require abstracting concrete assertions into their precise logical roles.

Key Concept

Identifying Intermediate (Subsidiary) Conclusions
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Question 59Question →

In the state of New Lemuria, a strict building code was implemented requiring all new residential constructions to utilize advanced fire-resistant materials. Over the five years following the implementation of this code, the absolute number of newly constructed homes that experienced a residential fire was exactly 20% higher than the number of newly constructed homes that experienced a fire during the five years immediately prior to the code. Nevertheless, the state's fire marshal concluded that the new building code was highly effective in reducing the likelihood that any newly constructed home would experience a fire.

Statement: The apparent discrepancy between the fire incident data and the fire marshal's conclusion is successfully resolved if it is true that the total number of newly constructed homes built in New Lemuria during the five years after the code was implemented was exactly 10% greater than the total number of newly constructed homes built during the five years prior.

Show answer & explanation

Answer: False

Answer

False
The statement is False because it fails to mathematically reconcile the evidence with the conclusion. If the absolute number of fires increased by 20%, but the total number of homes only increased by 10%, the rate (likelihood) of fire per home must have increased. This directly contradicts the fire marshal's conclusion that the likelihood decreased. To resolve the paradox, the percentage increase in total homes would have to be strictly greater than the percentage increase in fires (e.g., a 30% increase in homes).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two apparently contradictory premises in the stimulus.
Premise 1: The absolute number of fires in new homes increased by 20%. Premise 2: The fire marshal concluded that the likelihood (rate) of a new home catching fire decreased.
Resolving the paradox requires finding a fact that allows both the absolute number of incidents to rise and the rate of incidents to fall simultaneously.
2
Define the mathematical relationship between absolute numbers and likelihood (rates).
The rate of fire is equal to the absolute number of fires divided by the total number of homes built (Rate=FiresHomesRate = \frac{Fires}{Homes}).
This formula connects the evidence (absolute numbers) to the conclusion (likelihood).
3
Evaluate the mathematical impact of the proposed statement on the established relationship.
The statement posits a 10% increase in total homes. Given a 20% increase in fires, the new rate is 1.20×Fires1.10×Homes\frac{1.20 \times Fires}{1.10 \times Homes}, which is approximately 1.091.09 times the old rate.
Calculating the precise impact determines if the statement actually resolves the contradiction.
4
Compare the resulting rate to the fire marshal's conclusion.
The calculation shows the rate of fire increased by about 9%, which directly contradicts the fire marshal's conclusion that the likelihood decreased.
A statement that contradicts a premise or conclusion in the stimulus exacerbates rather than resolves the paradox.

Key Concept

Distinguishing between absolute numbers and proportional rates, and understanding the mathematical constraints required for a baseline shift to resolve a discrepancy between the two.
Question 60Question →

Transportation Planner: The city council proposes combating severe gridlock by replacing our entire fleet of human-driven taxis with a unified system of autonomous electric pods. Proponents claim that because these pods communicate seamlessly to coordinate speeds, they will completely eliminate the stop-and-go ripple effects caused by human braking. However, to operate continuously, the pods require a specialized inductive-charging lane to be carved out of the existing roadways on every major thoroughfare. Since this reallocation will reduce the number of lanes available to the vast majority of vehicles—which are not taxis—adopting the pod system will inevitably exacerbate the city's overall gridlock.

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

Show answer & explanation

Answer: The reduction in congestion resulting from the pods' coordinated speeds will not offset the increased congestion caused by the loss of lanes available to non-pod vehicles.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the reduction in congestion resulting from the pods' coordinated speeds will not offset the increased congestion caused by the loss of lanes available to non-pod vehicles.
The argument weighs a positive factor (reduced ripple effects) against a negative factor (loss of a traffic lane) and definitively concludes a net negative outcome (exacerbated gridlock). For this conclusion to hold, the author absolutely must assume that the positive factor does not cancel out the negative factor. If we apply the Negation Test and assume the reduction in congestion *does* offset the increased congestion, the conclusion that gridlock will inevitably exacerbate falls apart entirely. Therefore, this assumption is strictly necessary.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the stimulus structure.
Identified the conclusion ('adopting the pod system will inevitably exacerbate the city's overall gridlock') and the premises (pods eliminate braking ripple effects, but require taking away a lane from non-taxi vehicles).
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to expose the logical gap between the evidence provided and the definitive claim made.
2
Identify the logical gap.
The planner acknowledges a benefit (eliminating ripple effects) but concludes there will be a definitive net negative (exacerbated gridlock) due to a drawback (loss of lanes).
When an argument weighs a benefit against a cost and concludes a specific net outcome, it assumes the relative magnitudes of these factors support that outcome.
3
Formulate the necessary assumption.
The negative impact of losing a lane must be strictly greater than the positive impact of eliminating the ripple effects.
If the positive impact were equal to or greater than the negative impact, gridlock would remain the same or improve, destroying the conclusion.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the anticipated assumption.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The reduction in congestion WILL offset the increased congestion.' This completely invalidates the conclusion that gridlock will inevitably exacerbate.
The Negation Test definitively proves if an assumption is strictly logically necessary.

Key Concept

Necessary Assumption: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Net Effects
PreviousPage 3 / 34Next
Logical Reasoning Practice Questions — LSAT — Page 3 | Examkin