Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaNecessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws

Evolutionary Biologist: For any species to survive a period of rapid environmental upheaval, it must possess a high degree of genetic variation. The newly discovered population of cave-dwelling salamanders exhibits a remarkably high degree of genetic variation across its genome. Therefore, this population of salamanders will undoubtedly survive the current period of rapid environmental upheaval.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the evolutionary biologist's reasoning?

  1. treats a condition that is required for a certain outcome as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.Cevap
  2. B
    infers that a condition is necessary for a particular outcome merely because that condition is sufficient to produce that outcome.
  3. C
    concludes that one event causes another event based merely on the observation that the two events occur together.
  4. D
    assumes that a characteristic belonging to a species as a whole must also belong to every individual organism within that species.
  5. E
    uses a key scientific term in two distinctly different senses without clarifying the shift in meaning.

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it treats a condition that is required for a certain outcome as if it were sufficient to guarantee that outcome.
The argument correctly states that genetic variation is necessary for survival ('must possess'). It then observes that the salamanders have this genetic variation and concludes they will 'undoubtedly survive'. This is a classic illegal reversal: it treats a necessary condition (having genetic variation) as if it were a sufficient condition that guarantees the outcome.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise 1: Survival requires genetic variation (Survival -> Genetic Variation). Premise 2: Salamanders have genetic variation. Conclusion: Salamanders will survive.
Deconstructing the argument's conditional logic is essential for spotting formal reasoning flaws.
2
Analyze the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument establishes that genetic variation is a requirement (a necessary condition) for survival. However, the conclusion assumes that simply meeting this requirement guarantees survival.
Comparing the argument's structure to valid conditional reasoning reveals the specific logical error known as an illegal reversal.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to find the one that accurately describes this illegal reversal.
The correct option explicitly identifies that the argument treats a requirement (necessary condition) as a guarantee (sufficient condition).
Flaw questions require selecting the abstract description that precisely matches the logical error made in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions (Illegal Reversal)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Necessary vs. Sufficient Condition Flaws

Bu konudan daha fazla soru