Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorParallel Flaw

A healthy ecosystem requires a diverse population of apex predators. Without a diverse population of apex predators, herbivore populations grow unchecked. Therefore, if a forest contains a healthy ecosystem, its herbivore populations will not grow unchecked.

Which one of the following arguments contains a flawed pattern of reasoning most similar to the one exhibited in the argument above?

  1. Any critically acclaimed film features a compelling narrative. If a film features a compelling narrative, it will resonate with a wide audience. Therefore, if a film resonates with a wide audience, it must be a critically acclaimed film.Cevap
  2. B
    Only students who study diligently consistently achieve high grades. Without consistently achieving high grades, it is impossible to earn a scholarship. Therefore, any student who earns a scholarship must study diligently.
  3. C
    All modern smartphones contain rare earth metals. If a device contains rare earth metals, it is expensive to manufacture. Therefore, if a device is not a modern smartphone, it is not expensive to manufacture.
  4. D
    Any successful politician must have exceptional public speaking skills. Anyone lacking exceptional public speaking skills will struggle to raise campaign funds. Therefore, if a person is a successful politician, they will not struggle to raise campaign funds.
  5. E
    Every novel nominated for the literary prize was highly acclaimed by critics. A book cannot become a bestseller unless it is highly acclaimed by critics. Therefore, some novels nominated for the literary prize became bestsellers.

Cevap

The argument concluding that a successful politician will not struggle to raise campaign funds.
The correct answer identically replicates the flawed logical structure of the stimulus. The stimulus argues: A -> B, ~B -> C, therefore A -> ~C. It incorrectly assumes that having the necessary condition prevents the consequence of lacking it. The correct option follows this exact pattern: Successful Politician (A) -> Public Speaking (B), Lacking Public Speaking (~B) -> Struggle to Raise Funds (C), therefore Successful Politician (A) -> Will Not Struggle to Raise Funds (~C).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the formal logical structure and components of the stimulus.
Premise 1 establishes a necessary condition: Healthy Ecosystem (HE) -> Apex Predators (AP). Premise 2 provides a conditional rule for the absence of that condition: No Apex Predators (~AP) -> Herbivores Unchecked (HU). The conclusion chains these to claim: Healthy Ecosystem (HE) -> Not Herbivores Unchecked (~HU).
Deconstructing the argument into its abstract formal logic components is required to identify the exact structural flaw.
2
Identify the precise logical flaw committed in the stimulus.
The argument incorrectly assumes that because the absence of a condition (~AP) leads to a specific result (HU), the presence of that same condition (AP) guarantees the opposite result (~HU). The author illegally negates the second premise to artificially bridge the gap to the conclusion.
Understanding the precise nature of the fallacy is necessary to find an identical abstract pattern in the options.
3
Evaluate the options to find an argument with the identical flawed logical structure.
The option concerning the successful politician perfectly matches. Premise 1: Successful Politician (SP) -> Public Speaking (PS). Premise 2: No Public Speaking (~PS) -> Struggle to Raise Funds (SRF). Conclusion: Successful Politician (SP) -> Not Struggle to Raise Funds (~SRF).
To answer a Parallel Flaw question correctly, the selected choice must exhibit the exact same abstract error as the stimulus, regardless of subject matter.

Anahtar Kavram

Parallel Flaw - Mistaken Conditional Logic (Illegal Negation of a chained premise)
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Parallel Flaw

Bu konudan daha fazla soru