Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaBridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions

Historian: Any society that maintains a standing professional army must divert a substantial portion of its agricultural surplus to the state. However, diverting a substantial portion of agricultural surplus to the state inevitably suppresses the development of an independent merchant class. Therefore, if an ancient society featured a flourishing independent merchant class, it must not have possessed heavily fortified urban centers.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the historian's argument depends?

  1. A
    If a society maintains a standing professional army, it is guaranteed to possess heavily fortified urban centers.
  2. B
    The primary historical reason for constructing heavily fortified urban centers was to protect agricultural surpluses from foreign invasions.
  3. Any society that possesses heavily fortified urban centers also maintains a standing professional army.Cevap
  4. D
    Societies that avoid diverting their agricultural surplus to the state will inevitably develop a flourishing independent merchant class.
  5. E
    A standing professional army is the only state institution capable of suppressing the development of an independent merchant class.

Cevap

The argument depends on the assumption that any society that possesses heavily fortified urban centers also maintains a standing professional army.
The historian establishes a logical chain: maintaining a standing army leads to diverting surplus, which in turn suppresses an independent merchant class. By contrapositive, if a society has a flourishing independent merchant class, it must NOT have a standing professional army. However, the historian's conclusion jumps to stating that such a society must not have 'heavily fortified urban centers.' For this conclusion to logically follow from the fact that they lack a standing army, the argument must assume a connection between the two: specifically, that having heavily fortified urban centers requires having a standing professional army. If we negate this correct statement ('A society can possess heavily fortified urban centers without maintaining a standing professional army'), the historian's conclusion completely falls apart.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the formal logic of the premises.
Premise 1: Standing Army -> Divert Surplus. Premise 2: Divert Surplus -> Suppressed Merchant Class. Chain: Standing Army -> Suppressed Merchant Class.
Tracking the conditional statements reveals what the author has successfully proven so far.
2
Map the formal logic of the conclusion.
Conclusion: Flourishing Merchant Class (Not Suppressed) -> No Heavily Fortified Urban Centers.
This exposes the exact claim the author is trying to make based on the premises.
3
Identify the logical gap (rogue element).
The premises prove that a Flourishing Merchant Class -> No Standing Army (by contrapositive). However, the conclusion claims Flourishing Merchant Class -> No Heavily Fortified Urban Centers.
Finding the mismatch between what is proven and what is concluded isolates the missing link.
4
Formulate the required bridging assumption.
To jump from 'No Standing Army' to 'No Heavily Fortified Urban Centers', the argument must assume: No Standing Army -> No Heavily Fortified Urban Centers. The contrapositive of this is: Heavily Fortified Urban Centers -> Standing Army.
A Supporter Assumption must connect the rogue term in the conclusion back to the framework established in the premises.

Anahtar Kavram

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions in Formal Logic
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Bridging Gap (Supporter) Assumptions

Bu konudan daha fazla soru