Which of the following correctly pairs each research ethics argument with its underlying logical reasoning structure or flaw in reasoning?
- Argument 1: Every clinical trial that receives expedited regulatory clearance publishes its preliminary safety metrics within thirty days. The Phase II neurology study published its preliminary safety metrics within thirty days; therefore, it must have received expedited regulatory clearance.Inferring that because a sufficient condition guarantees an outcome, the occurrence of that outcome demonstrates that the specific sufficient condition was met.
- Argument 2: Any biomedical laboratory that handles airborne Class-4 pathogens is mandated to maintain negative air pressure chambers. The genomics laboratory does not handle airborne Class-4 pathogens; thus, it is not mandated to maintain negative air pressure chambers.Inferring that because a condition is sufficient to trigger an obligation, the failure to satisfy that condition ensures that the obligation does not apply.
- Argument 3: If an experimental drug trial involves high-risk gene editing, it requires unanimous consent from the full institutional review board. The oncology trial did not obtain unanimous consent from the full institutional review board; hence, it does not involve high-risk gene editing.Validly deducing the absence of an initial condition from the confirmed failure to satisfy its necessary requirement.
- Argument 4: Most pharmaceuticals that successfully pass animal efficacy screenings exhibit measurable binding affinity in vitro. Therefore, most pharmaceuticals that exhibit measurable binding affinity in vitro will successfully pass animal efficacy screenings.Erroneously treating a proportional statement about a majority of one group as though it established a proportional majority in the converse direction.
Cevap
Argument 1 matches the flaw of affirming the consequent (reversing a sufficient condition); Argument 2 matches the flaw of denying the antecedent (negating a sufficient condition); Argument 3 matches the valid contrapositive deduction; Argument 4 matches the illegitimate reversal of a majority quantifier.
Each argument is precisely matched to its formal logical architecture: Argument 1 commits a conditional reversal error (affirming the consequent); Argument 2 commits a conditional negation error (denying the antecedent); Argument 3 applies valid deductive contraposition; and Argument 4 makes an invalid conversion of a 'most' quantifier statement.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Parallel reasoning and parallel flaw analysis require isolating underlying logical skeletons—distinguishing valid contraposition from common conditional fallacies and illicit quantifier inversions.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s