Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumSyllogism and Categorical Propositions

Read the following statements and candidate conclusions carefully. Assume the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance with commonly known facts.

Statements:
1. All luminescent flora are toxic species.
2. No toxic species are apex predators.

Conclusions:
I. No luminescent flora are apex predators.
II. Some toxic species are luminescent flora.
III. Some toxic species are not apex predators.

Which of the following logically follows from the given statements?

  1. Only conclusion I followsAnswer
  2. B
    Only conclusions I and II follow
  3. C
    Only conclusions I and III follow
  4. D
    All conclusions I, II, and III follow

Answer

The correct evaluation is that only conclusion I follows logically from the premises without requiring additional assumptions.
The valid conclusion relies strictly on the boundaries defined by the premises. Because luminescent flora represents a subset completely contained within toxic species, and toxic species are mutually exclusive from apex predators, it is completely impossible for any luminescent flora to be an apex predator. This makes the first conclusion flawlessly valid. The other conclusions require assuming that the subjects actually exist, which is an invalid deductive leap known as the existential fallacy.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Conclusion I using the principles of set containment and exclusion.
Since all 'luminescent flora' are contained within the set of 'toxic species', and the set of 'toxic species' has zero overlap with 'apex predators', it mathematically guarantees that 'luminescent flora' has zero overlap with 'apex predators'.
Applying the transitive property of categorical exclusions (if L is a subset of T, and T intersects A is empty, then L intersects A is empty).
2
Evaluate Conclusion II for strict logical validity under Boolean rules.
Conclusion II ('Some toxic species are luminescent flora') is invalid.
The premise 'All luminescent flora are toxic species' does not prove that any luminescent flora actually exist in this context. Deriving a particular conclusion ('Some') from a universal premise ('All') commits the existential fallacy.
3
Evaluate Conclusion III for strict logical validity under Boolean rules.
Conclusion III ('Some toxic species are not apex predators') is invalid.
Similar to Step 2, the premise 'No toxic species are apex predators' does not establish the physical existence of toxic species. We cannot deduce that 'some' exist to possess the trait of not being apex predators.

Key Concept

Boolean Logic and the Existential Fallacy in Syllogisms
Rate this question

Topics

Syllogism and Categorical Propositions

More questions from this topic