Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardStatement and Conclusions or Inferences

Read the following statements and the conclusions derived from them carefully.

Statement 1: Under the new national cybersecurity directive, all critical infrastructure providers must report any data breach to the federal oversight committee within 48 hours. Furthermore, any provider that handles classified government data will face immediate financial penalties upon reporting such a breach.
Statement 2: Apex Energy, a recognized critical infrastructure provider, recently reported a data breach to the committee within the mandated 48-hour window but did not face any immediate financial penalties.

Conclusion I: Apex Energy does not handle classified government data.
Conclusion II: Critical infrastructure providers that do not handle classified government data are exempt from immediate financial penalties when they report a data breach.

Based on the given statements, which of the conclusions logically follows?

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

Answer

Only conclusion I follows
The correct answer accurately identifies that only the first conclusion is a valid logical deduction. Statement 1 sets up a conditional premise: Handling classified data leads to immediate penalties. Statement 2 tells us Apex Energy did not receive immediate penalties. According to formal logic, if the consequence did not occur, the condition could not have been met. Therefore, Apex Energy does not handle classified data. Conclusion II is invalid because the text never states that handling classified data is the *only* reason a company might face penalties.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Statement 1 for logical conditions.
Establishes a strict conditional rule: If a provider handles classified data, then they will face immediate financial penalties (A → B).
To identify the formal premises and boundaries provided in the text.
2
Evaluate Statement 2 against the established conditions.
Apex Energy reported a breach but did not face immediate penalties (Not B).
To establish the specific factual outcome regarding the subject in question.
3
Test the logical validity of Conclusion I.
Using the deductive rule of Modus Tollens (If A → B, and Not B is true, then Not A must be true), since Apex Energy did not face penalties, they must not handle classified data. Conclusion I is valid.
To determine if Conclusion I can be directly and necessarily inferred.
4
Test the logical validity of Conclusion II.
Conclusion II assumes that if a provider does NOT handle classified data, they won't face penalties (Not A → Not B). This is the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. The statements do not rule out penalties for other unstated reasons. Conclusion II is invalid.
To ensure Conclusion II is not an unwarranted assumption masquerading as a deduction.

Key Concept

Formal Logic Deductions from Conditional Statements (Modus Tollens vs. Inverse Fallacy)
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Conclusions or Inferences

More questions from this topic