Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: KolayStrengthen

Match each logical argument (on the left) with the additional premise (on the right) that most strongly bridges its logical gap and supports its conclusion.

  • Argument A (Causal): Adults who read fiction regularly have higher empathy scores. Therefore, reading fiction increases a person's empathy.Individuals who possess high empathy naturally are not significantly more drawn to reading fiction than those with lower empathy.
  • Argument B (Causal/Trend): The city implemented a new recycling program, and total landfill waste decreased by 20% this year. Thus, the recycling program successfully reduced waste.There was no decrease in the overall amount of garbage produced by the city's residents during this year.
  • Argument C (Sampling): A survey of customers at a luxury sports car dealership found that 90% prefer leather seats. Therefore, most car buyers prefer leather seats.The seating preferences of customers at the luxury dealership accurately reflect the preferences of the broader car-buying market.
  • Argument D (Analogy): Implementing a casual dress code boosted employee morale at the local tech startup. A casual dress code will certainly boost morale at the traditional law firm.The underlying factors that influence employee morale at traditional law firms are identical to those at tech startups.

Cevap

Argument A pairs with ruling out reverse causation. Argument B pairs with ruling out an alternate cause for the trend. Argument C pairs with validating the representativeness of the sample. Argument D pairs with validating the relevant similarities in the analogy.
Each correct match directly patches the specific logical hole in the corresponding argument. Argument A requires defense against reverse causation. Argument B requires defense against alternative explanations for a trend. Argument C requires validation of an unrepresentative sample. Argument D requires validation of an analogy between two vastly different workplaces.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze Argument A to identify its logical vulnerability.
The argument assumes causation from a mere correlation between reading fiction and empathy.
To strengthen a causal claim based on correlation, the best premise will rule out reverse causation or a third variable.
2
Analyze Argument B to identify its logical vulnerability.
The argument assumes the recycling program is the sole cause of the 20% drop in landfill waste.
To strengthen this, we must rule out alternative explanations, such as residents simply producing less trash overall.
3
Analyze Argument C to identify its logical vulnerability.
The argument uses a highly specific, potentially biased sample (luxury car buyers) to make a claim about all car buyers.
To strengthen a conclusion based on a survey, a premise must show that the sample is representative of the whole group.
4
Analyze Argument D to identify its logical vulnerability.
The argument relies on an analogy between a tech startup and a traditional law firm.
To strengthen an analogy, a premise must confirm that the two entities are similar in ways that are relevant to the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Strengthening arguments by diagnosing specific logical gaps (causation, sampling, analogies) and supplying premises that directly address those vulnerabilities.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Strengthen

Bu konudan daha fazla soru