Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorApplying the Negation Technique

An agricultural chemical company recently developed a novel herbicide that targets a specific enzyme found in broadleaf weeds, effectively killing them. The company's extensive trials demonstrate that this targeted enzyme is completely absent in corn plants. Therefore, the company concludes that farmers can apply this new herbicide to their cornfields without causing any biological damage to the corn crop.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

  1. The new herbicide does not cause biological damage to corn plants through any mechanism other than interacting with the targeted enzyme.Cevap
  2. B
    Any chemical herbicide that fails to interact with a plant's enzymes will be entirely harmless to that plant.
  3. C
    Corn plants do not share any other enzymes with broadleaf weeds aside from the ones immune to the herbicide.
  4. D
    The new herbicide is more effective at eliminating broadleaf weeds than other commercially available herbicides that target multiple plant enzymes.
  5. E
    Broadleaf weeds cannot develop a biological resistance to the new herbicide over multiple growing seasons.

Cevap

The argument requires the assumption that the new herbicide does not cause biological damage to corn plants through any mechanism other than interacting with the targeted enzyme.
The argument concludes that the herbicide will cause no biological damage to the corn crop, based solely on the fact that corn lacks the single specific enzyme the herbicide targets. This reasoning contains a massive logical gap: it assumes that targeting this specific enzyme is the ONLY way the herbicide could possibly harm a plant. To verify this is the required assumption, we apply the Negation Technique. If we negate the correct answer, it reads: 'The new herbicide DOES cause biological damage to corn plants through a mechanism other than interacting with the targeted enzyme.' If this negated statement is true, the author's conclusion—that the herbicide can be applied 'without causing any biological damage'—is completely destroyed. Because the logical opposite of the statement ruins the argument, the original statement is an assumption strictly required by the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's conclusion and premises.
Premise: The herbicide targets a specific enzyme in weeds, which is absent in corn. Conclusion: The herbicide will not cause any biological damage to corn.
Deconstructing the argument is the necessary first step to finding the logical gap between the evidence provided and the claim made.
2
Locate the scope shift (the logical gap) between the premise and the conclusion.
The premise proves the herbicide won't harm corn via ONE specific mechanism (the targeted enzyme). The conclusion claims the herbicide won't harm corn via ANY mechanism ('without causing any biological damage').
Identifying the shift from a specific protection to a general guarantee reveals exactly what the author left unstated.
3
Formulate a necessary assumption and test answer choices using the Negation Technique.
The argument assumes no other mechanism of harm exists. Negating the correct answer yields: 'The herbicide DOES cause biological damage through another mechanism.'
The Negation Technique is the definitive test for Necessary Assumption questions. If the negated form of an option makes the conclusion impossible, that option is the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Applying the Negation Technique to test Necessary Assumptions
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Applying the Negation Technique

Bu konudan daha fazla soru