In Logical Reasoning, a 'Defender Assumption' is a necessary assumption that protects a causal conclusion by ruling out a specific alternative explanation or vulnerability. Match each causal argument and its corresponding objection (Left) to the precise defender assumption (Right) that the argument MUST make to survive the objection.
- Argument: A pharmaceutical study concludes that Drug X accelerates recovery from illness.
Objection: The study subjects taking Drug X were significantly younger and naturally healthier than the control group.The pre-existing physiological resilience of the individuals selected for the treatment cohort did not independently account for their accelerated rate of healing. - Argument: A city credits its new policing strategy for a 20% drop in crime.
Objection: A broader demographic aging of the city's population over the same period naturally reduced the population of at-risk youth.The observed decrease in illicit activity was not merely a byproduct of a naturally aging populace altering the city's demographic profile. - Argument: An economist argues that offering high bonuses causes CEOs to achieve higher corporate profits.
Objection: Companies that are already highly profitable are simply the only ones that can afford to offer high bonuses.The compensation levels of corporate leadership are not determined primarily by the pre-existing financial prosperity of the firm. - Argument: A biologist concludes that a novel virus caused the rapid extinction of a local predator.
Objection: An unprecedented freeze eliminated the predator's sole food source right before the population collapsed.A sudden, environmental depletion of the foundational prey base was not the true catalyst for the disappearance of the dominant carnivore.
Cevap
The correct mappings uniquely pair each causal vulnerability with the defender assumption that directly negates it. The Drug X argument matches the assumption ruling out physiological resilience; the crime strategy argument matches the assumption ruling out demographic shifts; the corporate bonus argument matches the assumption ruling out pre-existing prosperity; and the predator extinction argument matches the assumption ruling out prey depletion.
Each correct pair links a specific vulnerability in a causal argument to the exact logical negation of that vulnerability. A defender assumption functions by bridging the gap created by an objection; it essentially states 'the alternative explanation raised by the objection is not true.'
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)