Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardStatement and Conclusions or Inferences

Consider the following statements and the conclusions that follow.

Statements:
1. According to the updated National Energy Policy, grid integration priority is granted exclusively to renewable power plants that incorporate localized battery storage systems.
2. The newly commissioned Helios Solar Facility in the northern district was denied grid integration priority last week despite generating exceeding amounts of clean energy.

Conclusions:
I. The Helios Solar Facility does not currently possess a localized battery storage system.
II. If the Helios Solar Facility installs a localized battery storage system, it will immediately be granted grid integration priority.

Which of the following logically follows from the given statements?

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

Answer

Neither conclusion I nor conclusion II follows
Neither conclusion can be logically deduced strictly from the text. Statement 1 establishes that a localized battery storage system is a required prerequisite (necessary condition) for grid integration priority, but it does not state it is an absolute guarantee (sufficient condition). Therefore, a facility can be denied priority even if it has a battery (invalidating Conclusion I), and acquiring a battery does not automatically grant priority (invalidating Conclusion II).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the logical relationship established in Statement 1.
The phrase 'granted exclusively to' indicates that having a localized battery storage system is a necessary condition (a prerequisite) for getting grid integration priority. It does not state that it is a sufficient condition (an automatic guarantee).
Establishing the exact logical boundaries of conditional statements is required to evaluate deductions.
2
Evaluate Conclusion I against the established logical rule.
Statement 2 notes Helios was denied priority. Because a battery is only a minimum requirement and not a guarantee, Helios could possess a battery but be denied priority for other technical reasons. Therefore, we cannot definitively conclude it lacks a battery.
Deducing the absence of a necessary condition from a negative outcome is a formal logical fallacy (denying the antecedent).
3
Evaluate Conclusion II against the established logical rule.
Conclusion II assumes that installing a battery will immediately result in grid priority. This incorrectly treats a necessary prerequisite as a sufficient guarantee.
Logically valid conclusions cannot escalate a minimum requirement into an absolute guarantee.

Key Concept

Conditional Logic: Distinguishing Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Conclusions or Inferences

More questions from this topic