Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaFlaw in the Reasoning

Read the following argument and evaluate the statement below it.

Archaeologist: Historical records show that whenever an ancient empire rapidly expanded its territory, it subsequently suffered a severe economic depression due to overextended supply lines. Recent analysis of the ancient Valerian Empire reveals that it suffered a catastrophic economic depression in its final decades. Therefore, the Valerian Empire must have rapidly expanded its territory shortly before its fall.

Statement: The archaeologist's argument is vulnerable to criticism because it draws a broad conclusion about ancient empires based on a single, potentially unrepresentative historical example.

Cevap: Cevap

Cevap

False. The statement inaccurately describes the logical flaw committed in the stimulus.
The correct evaluation is False. The provided statement inaccurately describes the argument's logical error. The archaeologist reasons from a broad rule to a specific conclusion, whereas the statement alleges that the archaeologist reasons from a specific example to a broad conclusion. The actual vulnerability is that the argument treats an outcome (economic depression) that is necessary for rapid expansion to have occurred as though it were sufficient to prove that rapid expansion occurred.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure and direction of the archaeologist's argument.
The argument moves from a general historical rule (whenever an empire expands rapidly, it suffers depression) to a specific conclusion about a single entity (the Valerian Empire expanded rapidly).
Understanding the direction of reasoning is necessary to evaluate abstract descriptions of the argument's structure.
2
Identify the actual logical flaw committed in the argument.
The argument commits a conditional reasoning flaw (illegal reversal). It assumes that because the Valerian Empire experienced the result (depression), it must have experienced the trigger (rapid expansion), ignoring other potential causes of economic depression.
You must know what the true flaw is to determine if the provided statement describes it accurately.
3
Evaluate the provided statement against the argument's actual structure and flaw.
The statement claims the argument draws a broad conclusion from a single example. This is false, as the argument draws a specific conclusion from a broad rule.
This confirms the statement is an inaccurate description of the argument's vulnerability.

Anahtar Kavram

Accurately identifying and differentiating between specific logical flaws in reasoning.
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru