Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStatement and Conclusions or Inferences

Analyze the two statements below and the subsequent conclusions to determine logical validity.

Statement I: The municipal zoning authority has ruled that any newly constructed commercial complex with a footprint exceeding 50,00050,000 square feet must allocate a minimum of 15%15\% of its total ground area to public recreational spaces.
Statement II: A consortium of major real estate developers recently suspended the construction of their planned 80,00080,000 square feet commercial projects.

Conclusion I: The developers suspended their projects specifically because they were unwilling to comply with the 15%15\% public recreational space mandate.
Conclusion II: Any newly constructed commercial complex that legally allocates only 10%10\% of its ground area to public recreational spaces must have a footprint of 50,00050,000 square feet or less.

Which of the given conclusions logically follows from the statements?

  1. A
    Only Conclusion I follows
  2. Only Conclusion II followsAnswer
  3. C
    Both Conclusion I and Conclusion II follow
  4. D
    Neither Conclusion I nor Conclusion II follows

Answer

The correct option is that Only Conclusion II follows.
Conclusion II is a valid deduction because it represents the contrapositive of Statement I. Statement I creates a rule: If Area > 50,00050,000, then Recreation ≥15%\ge 15\%. Conclusion II tests the inverse: if Recreation is only 10%10\% (which is <15%< 15\%), then the Area cannot be >50,000> 50,000. Conclusion I is invalid because the text never explicitly states why the developers suspended their projects; inferring their motivation is an assumption, not a logical deduction.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement I to extract logical rules and boundaries.
Identified the conditional rule: If a complex is greater than 50,00050,000 square feet, then it must allocate at least 15%15\% to recreational spaces.
To establish the primary logical parameters that govern the scenario.
2
Evaluate Conclusion I against the provided statements.
Conclusion I is invalid. While Statement II confirms that large projects were suspended, neither statement provides the reason for this suspension.
To verify if the first conclusion relies on unstated assumptions or external knowledge.
3
Evaluate Conclusion II using formal logic against Statement I.
Conclusion II is valid. Using the contrapositive (modus tollens): if the recreational space is less than 15%15\% (e.g., 10%10\%), then the condition of being greater than 50,00050,000 square feet must be false.
To check whether the second conclusion represents a mathematically and logically sound deduction from the given rules.

Key Concept

Logical Deduction, Modus Tollens, and Distinguishing Inference from Assumption
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Conclusions or Inferences

More questions from this topic