Match each argumentative exchange (Left) with the accurate abstract description of how its counterexample logically refutes the prevailing claim (Right).
- Biologist: Many conservationists assert that non-native species invariably degrade the environments they enter. However, the introduction of the non-native earthworm to the northern forests significantly enriched the soil and boosted local plant diversity.Refuting a universal claim about the negative impact of a category by citing a member of that category that produced a beneficial outcome.
- Economist: Traditional theory dictates that increasing the minimum wage always leads to higher unemployment. Yet, in the 1990s, the fast-food industry in State Z saw a rapid increase in employment immediately following a minimum wage hike.Undermining an asserted causal rule by identifying a specific historical instance in which the presumed cause was followed by the exact opposite of its supposed effect.
- Political Scientist: It is widely maintained that a nation must have a high GDP per capita to transition to a democratic government. But Country W established a robust democratic system in the 1980s despite being one of the poorest nations in its region.Disproving a claim of necessity by offering an example of a system that achieved a specified outcome without possessing the purportedly required characteristic.
- Legal Scholar: Some argue that stricter penalties are the exclusive means to deter corporate tax evasion effectively. However, Country Q successfully eliminated widespread corporate tax evasion simply by simplifying its tax code and offering a temporary amnesty.Challenging the assertion that a particular strategy is the only way to achieve a goal by citing a case where the goal was accomplished using an entirely different approach.
Cevap
Pair the Biologist with the universal claim refutation, the Economist with the causal rule refutation, the Political Scientist with the claim of necessity refutation, and the Legal Scholar with the exclusive strategy refutation.
Each correct pair accurately maps the specific logical function of the counterexample to the argument's initial claim. Disproving necessity requires showing the outcome occurring without the condition. Disproving an exclusive means requires showing the outcome occurring via an alternative means. Disproving a causal rule requires showing the cause producing the opposite effect. Disproving a universal claim requires finding a single exception within the targeted category.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Identifying the functional role of a counterexample in refuting different types of logical claims (causal, necessary, universal).