Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorFlaw in the Reasoning

Archivist: If a historical repository maintains its ambient relative humidity strictly between 45 and 50 percent, its centuries-old vellum manuscripts will remain entirely free from destructive mold proliferation. Recent climate-control logs reveal that the regional repository experienced severe system fluctuations and failed to keep relative humidity within this specified range. We can conclude, therefore, that mold will inevitably proliferate on the repository's vellum manuscripts.

The archivist's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. A
    presumes without warrant that climate-control logs are infallible indicators of environmental conditions inside the storage vaults
  2. B
    bases its conclusion on an intermediate claim regarding equipment reliability that is unsupported by factual evidence
  3. treats a condition that is sufficient to ensure the prevention of mold as though it were necessary for preventing moldCevap
  4. D
    infers that all forms of microbial activity within an archive are inherently destructive to organic materials
  5. E
    fails to establish that fluctuations in temperature are correlated with fluctuations in relative humidity

Cevap

The argument treats a condition that is sufficient to ensure the prevention of mold as though it were necessary for preventing mold.
The argument's premises establish only that keeping humidity within 45–50% is sufficient to prevent mold. It does not establish that this range is the sole method of prevention. Failing to meet this specific condition does not prove that mold will proliferate, so the argument illicitly treats a sufficient condition as a necessary one.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to isolate the premises and the main conclusion.
Premise 1 states that keeping humidity between 45% and 50% guarantees no mold. Premise 2 states that humidity was not kept in this range. The conclusion asserts that mold will proliferate.
Deconstructing the argument structure reveals the specific logical leap made by the author.
2
Formalize the conditional logic and evaluate the inferential validity.
The first premise provides a sufficient condition for mold prevention: (Humidity 45–50%) → (No Mold). The author observes (Not Humidity 45–50%) and concludes (Mold Proliferation). This commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent (mistaken negation).
Failing to satisfy a sufficient condition does not guarantee the failure of the resulting outcome, as other protective factors may prevent mold.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to identify the option that accurately describes this structural error.
The correct option precisely notes that the author treats a sufficient condition for preventing mold as if it were a necessary requirement.
Accurately matching the abstract description to the underlying conditional error solves flaw-in-the-reasoning items.

Anahtar Kavram

Confusing Sufficient and Necessary Conditions (Mistaken Negation)
Tahmini Süre:1m 25s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru