Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorFlaw in the Reasoning

Soil Scientist: For cereal crops to maintain cellular hydration during prolonged dry spells, it is essential that their root networks establish a mutualistic association with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Recent agricultural trials demonstrated that adding silicate-enriched biochar to depleted soil reliably stimulates rapid mycorrhizal colonization across all tested wheat cultivars. Therefore, amending dryland farming plots with silicate-enriched biochar is all that is needed to ensure that wheat crops withstand extended periods of drought.

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

  1. A
    treats an intermediate finding regarding fungal colonization as the ultimate conclusion of the agricultural trials
  2. B
    questions the reliability of the field trials by disputing whether mycorrhizal fungi actually assist in cellular hydration
  3. assumes that satisfying an indispensable condition for drought endurance is sufficient to guarantee that crops will withstand droughtCevap
  4. D
    draws a broad conclusion about all agricultural soils based on an unrepresentative sample of test cultivars
  5. E
    presupposes that agricultural interventions can never succeed unless they rely on silicate-enriched soil amendments

Cevap

The argument assumes that satisfying an indispensable condition for drought endurance is sufficient to guarantee that crops will withstand drought.
The argument establishes that mycorrhizal colonization is an indispensable requirement (necessary condition) for plants to retain hydration during drought. It then observes that biochar stimulates this colonization. However, concluding that applying biochar is all that is needed to ensure crop survival confuses a necessary requirement with a sufficient guarantee, as drought endurance may require many other critical conditions beyond fungal colonization.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises and the primary conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1 establishes that mycorrhizal association is essential (necessary) for hydration during dry spells. Premise 2 establishes that silicate-enriched biochar reliably stimulates this association in tested wheat cultivars. Conclusion asserts that adding biochar is all that is needed (sufficient) to guarantee drought survival.
Separating the factual premises from the derived conclusion reveals the argument's logical architecture.
2
Evaluate the inferential leap connecting the premises to the conclusion.
The author treats a necessary condition (establishing fungal association) as if satisfying it were a sufficient condition to achieve the desired outcome (withstanding drought), overlooking other factors that could independently cause crops to fail during a drought.
Identifying the formal reasoning flaw exposes the argument's vulnerability to criticism.
3
Select the option that precisely characterizes this conditional logic error.
The option stating that the reasoning assumes satisfying an indispensable condition is sufficient to guarantee the outcome directly matches the identified flaw.
Ensures the chosen response accurately reflects the logical vulnerability without introducing outside assumptions.

Anahtar Kavram

Flaw in the Reasoning: Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Flaw in the Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru